m 


«  "•♦, 


\ 


\^^ 


s\ 


A 

DEFENCE 

O    F 

The  Divine  Right 
Of  Infant -Baptism. 

Wherein  are  confider'd, 


The   Confequences  of   embracing 

Anti-pedobaptifm, 
The  Antiquity  of  the  Praftlce  of 

baptifmg  Infants. 
^\i^Co^enant'lntereji  of  thelnfant- 

Children  of  Believers ;  and  the 

i'irgument  grounded  on  this  for 

their  Title  to  Baptifm. 


The  Texti  of  Scripture^  alledg'd 

as    confirming    Evidences    of 

their   Title. 
And 
The  Lanvfuln-fs  of  the  Mode  of 

adminiftringBaptifm  by  Affufion 

or  Sprinklings 


BEING 


In  Reply  to  Dr.  John  Gill's  Book,  intitled, 
The  Divine  Right  of  Infarit-Baptifm 
examined  and  difproved. 


AND 


In  Vindication  of  the  late  Mr.  Jonathan  Dickinson's 
Brief  Illujiration  and  Confirmation  of  the  Divine  Right 
of  Infant -Bapifm, 


By  Peter  Clark,  A.  M- 

Pallor  of  a  Church  in  Salem, 

BOSTON,    NEfT-ENGLAND: 
Friijted  and  Sold  by  S,  K  H  «  e  i  a  w  p,  in  ^etn-Strget,  i  7  S  «.; 


I NrR  O  DJ/criON. 


II^I^Here  having  been  a  fmall  Pamphlet 
^g'    ^ds-  printed  among  us,  a  few  Years  ago, 


written  on  the  Subjed  inControverfy 
between  us  2inAxh^AntipedobaptiJisymY^2CY 
oi Dialogue^  compos'd  (it  is  faid)  by  the  late 
Reverend  Mr.  Dickinfoir^  of  Elifabeth-Town 
in  New-Jerfey  ;  This  was  tho't  fo  confide- 
rable,  by  fome  of  the  Party  (it  feems)  as  that 
it  was  fent  over  to  Dr  John  Gilloi  London^ 
for  an  Anfv^er  to  it.-  In  Compliance  with 
which  Motion,  that  Gentleman  has  tho't  fit, 
in  a  labour'd  Piece  lately  publifh'd,  to  give 
the  World  a  Tafte  of  his  Abilities  in  an  At- 
tempt to  defend  the  novel  Opinions  of  his 
A   2  Sed, 


ii         Introduction. 

StS:.  And  a  confiderable  Number  of  his 
Books  being  bro't  ofer,and  difpers'd  in  thefe 
Parts ;  tending  to  unhinge  the  Minds  of  Peo- 
ple with  Refpecl  to  fome  important  Truths 
of  the  Gofpeljas  well  as  to  infufe  Scruples  in- 
to them  about  the  Validity  of  theirBaptifm 
in  Infancy  ;  I  can't  but  concur  in  Opinion 
withfeveralof  my  Friends, that  fome  Notice 
ought  to  be  taken  of  that  Performance,  in 
Way  of  Reply  :  And  at  their  Requeft^fhall 
endeavour  to  beftow  fome  Remarks  upon  it, 
to  undeceive  the  vulgar  Reader,  by  pointing 
out  the  many  Miftakes  that  occur  in  it, with 
a  Refutation  of  them. 

MyDifinclination  toControverfy  in  gene- 
ral, and  to  this  in  particular  ;  and  the  Hope 
I  had,  that  fome  other,  and  abler  Hand, 
might  be  engaged  in  it,  muft  be  pleaded  in 
Excufe  of  my  Dilatorinefs  in  this  Undertak- 
ing. 

I  am  very  fenfible, "  that  to  attempt  an 
Anfwcr,  at  this  Day,  to  the  Objedions  and 
Cavils  of  the  A7ttitedohaptiJls^  is  h\\ta8lu7n 
agere^X.Q  a6l  over  again  that  which  hatli  been 

done 


Introduction.        iii 

done  more  than  an  Hundred  Times  already^ 
and  that  upon  fuch  foHdGrounds  of  Reafoiij 
and  Scripture,  as  might  abundantly  fufficc 
to  determine  thePoint  with  all  unprejudic'd 
Inquirers,  and  to  fiilence  Gainfayers.     But 
fome  Men,  when  they  have  once  attached 
themfelves  to  the  Caufe  of  a  Party,  think 
themfelves  obliged  in   Point  of  Flonour  to 
perfift,  and  boldly  to  advance  in  the  Defence 
of  it,  tho'  it  be  in  Oppofition  to  the  cleareft 
Convidion.    Whether  this  be  the  Cafe  with 
Dn  Gilly  I  iliall  not  take  upon  me  to  deter- 
mine ;  but  confidering  his  dogmatical  Pofi.- 
tivenefs  in  his  Affertions,  together  with  the 
Slendernefs  of  his  Proofs,  and  the  Weaknefs 
and  Abfurdity  of  feveral  of  his  Arguments 
and  Objc£i:ions,  one  might  be  almofi:  temp- 
ted to  conclude,  the  Gentleman  was  fcarce 
in  Earneft  in  what  he  has  written. 

But  when  the  Truth  is  impugned,  by 
whomfoever,  or  in  what  Manner  foever,  and 
Scruples  call:  into  the  Minds  of  common 
People  by  the  fophiftical  Reafonings  of  its 
Adverfaries,  to  unfettle  their  Judgment  and 
Pradicc  in  Reference  to  thisChriftian  Ordi- 
nance 


iv         Introduction. 

nance  of  Baptirm^aDefence  appears  necefla- 
ry  ;  and  this  being  the  prefent  Cafe,  how 
little  foever  I  am  incHned  toControverfy,yet 
as  a  Friend  to  theCaufe  of  Truth,  andOrder 
in  theChurches,  I  fhall  not  grudge  my  Time 
andPains  employed  in  the  Vindication  of  it, 
againft  the  Errors  of  Antipedobaptifm. 

Wherefore  my  chief  Aim  and  Endeavour 
in  this  Undertaking  fhall  be  to  vindicate  The 
Divine  Right  of  Infant-Baptifm^  which  this 
Author  makes  fo  light  of,  &  to  clear  up  the 
Arguments,  from  Scriptiire  that  fupport  it, 
from  theDuft  &  Rubbifh  he  has  thrown  out 
upon  them,  to  breed  Confufion  &  Perplexity 
in  the  Minds  of  People  of  lefs  Difcerning, 
and  lefs  exercis'd  in  this  Controverfy.  And 
I  doubt  not  to  make  it  appear,  that  the  Ar- 
guments in  the  Dialogue  from  Scripture,  to 
prove  the  Right  of  Chriftian  Infants  to  Bap- 
tifm,  ftand  in  their  full  Force  and  Strength, 
notwithflanding  all  that  Dr.  G/V/has  offer'd 
to  invalidate  them.  I  propofe  to  deted  the 
Errors  and  Fallacies,  whereby  he  has  endea- 
voured to  darken  and  perplex  the  Subjcd: ; 
and  to  fctdetheDoc%ineof  Iniant-Baptifm 

on 


Introduct   I   O  N.  V 

on  right  fcriptural  Grounds,  to  the  general 
Satisfadion  (I  truft)  of  the  Confciences  of 
humble  &  impartial  Inquirers  into  theMind 
and  Will  of  God  in  his  Word. 

As  I  have  nothing  to  fay  againft  the  Me^ 
thod  Dr.  Gill  has  chofen  in  the  Diviiion 
he  has  made  of  his  Work  into  feveral  Chap- 
ters, I  fhall  attend  him  with  my  Remarks  on 
eachChapterdiftinftly.  His  two  orthree  firft 
are  taken  up  withDebates,  chiejfly,about  the 
Confequences  of  denying  Infant-Baptifm  : 
The  Merits  of  the  Caufe  inControverfy  come 
not  into  View,  till  we  come  to  his  fourth 
Chapter.  I  tho't  to  have  pafs'd  over  his 
formerChaptersjwith  fome  lighterTouches  : 
but  feveral  Things,  I  find,  occur  therein, 
which  will  require  more  large  Animadver- 
lions,  efpecially  in  his  Third,  wherein  (from 
a  flender  Occafion  oiffer'd  him  in  the  Dia-- 
logue]  he  has  led  his  Reader  into  the  hifto- 
rical  Part  of  the  Controverfy,  and  multipli- 
ed Authorities  to  make  good  his  Pretenfions 
inFavour  of  Adult-Baptifm  ;  the  particular 
Examination  whereof,  in  Order  to  diicover 
the  Difingenuity,  and  Unfairnefs  of  his  Re- 

prefentation 


VI         Introduction. 

prefentation  of  Fads,  and  the  Vanity  &  Im- 
pertinency  of  his  laborious  Searches/or  that 
Defign,  will  not,  I  fear,  be  bro't  within  fo 
narrow  aGompafs,  as  I  could  wi£h.  But  the 
main  Difpute  about  Infants  Right  to  Bap- 
tifm  will  turn  upon  the  Arguments  produced 
and  controverted  in  his  4.th  and  5th  Chap- 
ters. Wherefore  I  fhall  begin,  and  proceed 
with  him  in  the  Method,  and  Order  he  has 
propofed. 


•T«»  4^rv»  «i^  t/V^  .TrU  *Tr>»  »/v^  JV^  J9<»  Jyti*   ^r»  »fw^  .ttU  »!*«  «/W»  »/v\t  t/T» 


•iu»  p\fL/»  *^/*  *\A/*  *sjL*  "v^*  "ju*  '^jv*  ^&*  *Mw  •^/'  ^Sr*  'wv  •^J^  %v*  ^B**  "yv* 


^^l^?cMSi 


D   E   F   E   N   C^E 

Of  the  Divine  Right  o£ 
I  N  F  A  N  T-B  A  P  T  I  S  M. 

Chap.     I. 

Containing  Remarks  on  Dr,  GilPs  Intro- 
dudion  to  his  Performance. 

?S?1|^HE  firilChapter  our  Author  fpends  wholly 
in  giving  us  an  Account  of  the  Occafion 
of  hisWhting,  and  in  defcanting  on  the 
'Title  Page  of  the  Dialogue.  In  declaring 
the  Occafion  that  moved  him  to  draw 
his  Pen  in  this  Controverfy,  he  begins 
thus  ;  "  Many  being  converted  under  the  Minlftry  of 
"  the  Word  in  New- England^  and  enhghten'd  into  the 
*'  Ordinance  of  Believers  Baptifm,  whereby  the  Chur- 
^'  chcs  of  the  Baptift  Perfwafion  in  Bojlon  and  in  the 
*'  Country,  have  been  much  increafed,  has  alarmed  the 
*'  Pasdobaptift  Miniflers  of  that  Colony  j  who  have 
•*  applied  to  one  Mr.  Dickinson,  a  Country  Minifter 
*•  —  to  write  in  Favour  of  Infant -Sprinkling  ;  which 
"  Application  he  tho't  fit  to  attend  unto  &c."  In  this 
Introdudory  Paflage,  there  arefeveral  grofs  Miflakes  ia 
Facl,  or  manife'a  IJntruchs  :  But  before  I  take  Notice 
of  thefe,  I  can't  but  obferve,  in  what  Terms  of  Diftin- 


'^^S^ 


2  'A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  I. 

6lIon  Dr.  Gill  (in  common  with  all  otherAntipsedobap- 
tifts^  fpeaks  ot  the  Baptifm  adminiftred  in  their  Com- 
munion, calling  it  Believers  Baplifm^^nd  in  whatTerms 
ot  Diminution 5cContempt,he  fpeaks  of  theBaptifm  ad- 
mi  niiler'd  in  all  other  reformedChurches,who  areCasthey 
are  plcafed  to  term  them)  P^dobaptifts,  calling  it  /«- 
fani'Sfrinklino.,  The  former  Way  of  fpeaking  feems 
very  aifuming,  and  contemptuous  enough  to  their  Fel- 
lovv-C  iififtians,  as  if  theAntipsedobaptifts  were  the  only 
People  in  Cbrijtendojn,  who  are  in  the  Pradtice  of  bap- 
tizing Believers,and  as  if  all  others  baptiz'd  out  of  their 
Communion  were  Infidels,  and  theBaptifm  among  them 
not  worthy  of  the  Name  of  Chriftian  Baptifm ;  whereas 
there  is  no  other  Baptifm  adminiflred  in  our  Churches 
but  theBaptifm  of  Believers,or  thofe  who  are  accounted 
fuch,  either  upon  their  perfonal  Profeflion,  or  in  the 
Repute  of  the  Church,  andGod's  gracious  Acceptation. 
As  to  adult  Perfons  unbaptized,  they  are  no  otherwife 
admitted  to  Baptifm  among  us,  it  is  known,  than  upon 
a  perfonal  Profeflion  of  their  Faith.  And  as  to  the  In- 
fants of  fuch  profefling  Believers,  being  confider'd  as 
Parts  of  their  Parents,  and  being  admitted  by  God  into 
his  Covenant  with  their  believing  Parents,  they  arc 
juftly  reckoned  by  the  Church  in  the  Number  of  Be- 
lievers, and  as  fuch  baptiz'd  into  the  Faith  &  Religion 
of  their  Parents.  This  ought  not  to  appear  ftrange  to 
any,  who  confider,  that  among  all  Nations,  Children 
being  in  their  Non-age,  but  as  Parts  of  their  Parents, 
hav<i  ever  been  reckoned  of  the  Religion  of  their  Pa- 
rents •,  the  Child  ot  a  Mahometan  Parent,being  reputed 
a  Mahometan  •,  the  Child  of  a  Jewilh  Parent,  a  Jew, 
by  Religion,  as  well  as  Birth,  a  Difciple  of  Mofes  •,  and 
why  not  the  Chikl  of  a  Chriftian  Parent,  a  Chriftian,  a 
Bchever,  a  Difciple  of  Chrift,  a  Saint,  or  holy  ?  All 
which  are  Terms  equipollent,  as  ufed  in  theNew-Tefta- 
ment  *,  and  the  two  laft  exprefly  applied  to  the  Infants, 
o:  the  Faithful,  (A7.  15.  10.  i  Cor. j. 14..)  And  if  this 
diftinguifliingTerm,  they  are  fo  fond  of  in  fpeaking  of 

the 


Chap,  1.  ^/  Infant-Baptifm;  b 

theBaptifmpradifed  in  theirCommunlon,  offend  againfi: 
Charity,  the  other  Term,  whereby  they  would  expofe 
the  Baptifm  of  other  Churches  to  Derifion,  offends  no 
lefs  againftPiety ;  when  they  call  it  in  Way  of  Contempt 
and  Mockery  (as  the  Quakers  do)  Infant -Sprinkling. 
But  fince  the  far  greateft  Part  of  Men  of  Learning  and 
Piety,  and  thofe  as  little  liable  to  Miftakes  &  Prejudice 
(to  fay  the  leaft)  as  any  among  our  Antipasdobaptifts, 
have  been,  and  are  fully  perfwaded  of  the  divine  Infti- 
ftution  of  Infant  Baptifm,  as  alfo  of  the  Lawfulnefs  of 
the  Mode  of  Adminiftration  by  Pcrfufion,  or  Sprink- 
ling, •,  and  fmce  fo  very  greatNumbers  of  theirChrillian 
Br.ethren  (if  they  will  allow  them  to  be  Chriftian  Bre- 
thren) efteem  the  Baptifm  of  theChildren  of  theChurch 
among  the  moft  facred  Parts  of  their  Religion, it  is  con-- 
trary  to  all  Modefty,  and  to  the  Reverence  due  to  Re- 
ligion, and  facred  Inftitutions,  in  fuch  a  Manner  to  de- 
ride their  Pradice  •,  and  'tis  but  adling  a  friendly  Part 
to  Dr.  G/7/,  and  thofe  of  his  Stamp,  to  advife  them  to 
be  cautious  here,  left,  if  Infant  Baptifm  lliould  prove  to 
be  a  divine  Inftiturion,  (as  we  are  verily  perfwaded  it  is, 
and  God  has  own'd  it  by  his  BlefTing  in  very  numerous 
Inftances)  they  be  found  among  the  Scoffers  at  a  facred 
Ordinance  of  Jefus  Chrift.  Why  can't  the^e  Men  be 
content  with  their  own  TranfgrefTion,  in  negledling  to 
dedicate  their  Children  to  God  in  this  Ordinance,  (tho* 
they  plead,  they  are  not  convinc'd  that  it  is  their  Duty ; 
and  fo  far  as  this  can  be  truly  pleaded,!  hope  theMercy 
of  God  will  not  impute  it  to  them  ;  but  then,l  fay,why 
Ihould  not  their  own  Negled  furnce  them)  unlefs  they 
revile  the  Pradice  of  thofe  who  have  no  Scruples  about 
it,  but  are  fully  perfwaded,  not  only  of  it's  Lawfulnefs, 
put  of  their  Obligations  to  it,  as  a  Chriftian  Duty  ? 

But  the  main  Reafon  of  my  quoting  this  PafTage  at 
large,was  to  point  out  the  feveral  Miftakes  in  Fad,  con- 
tained in  it.  As  I.  "  That  the  Churches  of  thcBaptift 
•'  Perfwafion  at  Bojlon  and  in  the  Country,  have  been 
V  much  inceafedj  many  being  enlighten'd  into  the  Or- 
B  2  "  dinancc 


4  ^A  Defence  vf  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  L 

"  dinance  of  BelieversBaptlfm,"    That  this  is  aMiftake 
is  evident  to  all  that  know  anyThingof  the  State  of  the 
Baptifts  (as  they  call  themfclvesj   in  our  Country  :   I 
have  very  good  Information, that  the  Baptift  Church  in 
Bofton  under  theCare  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  C<?w^,has  been  ra- 
ther declining  for  feveralYears  pail,  byReafon  of  aDifFe- 
rence  that  has  rifen  among  them  about  fome  religious 
Opinions,  which  has  occafion'd  a  Number  of  the  Bre- 
thren to  withdraw  from  theCommunion  of  that  Church; 
who  have  formed  themfelves  into  a  fcparate  Society, 
over  which  they  have  fet  up  an  illiterate  Teacher.    To 
this  feparate  Society,  there  have  been,indeed,  fome  few 
Enthufiafts  &  Separatifts  from  fome  Churches  inBoflon, 
and  from  the  adjacent  Parts  of  the  Country,  who  have 
join'd  themfelves.     And  they  that  can  glory  in  fuch  an 
Increafe  as  this,  fhew  themfelves  better  pleafed  inNum- 
bers  added  to  their  Party,than  anyCreditto  theirCaufe. 
Whenas  all  other  underftanding  ferious  Chriftians,  who 
are  concerned  for  the  Truth  and  Order  of  the  Gofpel, 
inflead  of  envying  them  fuchAdditions,will  rather  think 
it  their  Duty  to  pity  'em,  and  pray  for  'em.     Further 
to  magnify  this  Account  of  the  Increafe  of  the  Baptifts 
am.ong  us,  he  fpeaksof  "  the  Churches  of  the  Baptift 
Perfwafion  in  Bofton  and  in  the  Country.'^  Whereas  be- 
fides  the  foremention'd  Baptift  Church  inBoftcn^l  know 
of  no  other  Baptift  Church  in  the  Country  within  forty 
Miles  of  Bofton.     Several  Perfons   of  that  Perfwafion 
are  fcattercd  up  and  down  in  the  Country,  and  in  fome 
Places  may  have  their  Meetings  -,  but  no  Churchy  that 
I  can  hear  of,  except  at  the  Out-Hcirts  of  the  Province 
towards  Rhode-JJland  and  Providence.     Where,  I  am 
informed, there  are  two,or  threeSocietieSjthat  call  them- 
felves Baptift  Chiirches^but  none  of  them  ("it  is  faidj  have 
any  Perfon  of  a  liberal  Education  for  their  Paftor. 

2.  '  Pis  added  further,  that  the  increafe  of  the  Chur- 
ches of  the  Baptift  Perfwafion  was  fo  great,  as  that 
"  ^t  alarmed  thePa:dobaptiftMlnifters  of  that  Colony" 
(rather  it  fliould  be  laid  ohhat  Province)  And  alarmed 

they 


GhAp.  I.  of  Infant-Baptlfm.-  5 

they  muft  be  to  a  high  Degree  fas  if  their  All  were  at 
StakeJ  that  they  fhould  beforc'd  to  fend  for  foreign  Aid, 
to  fo  great  aDiftancc  as  to  the  Jerfeys  (three  Hundred 
Miles  from  Bo§ion)  where  the  Reverend  Mr.  Bickinfon 
rcfided(the  late  learned  &  faithfulPaftor  of  thcChurch  in 
Elifahetb-Town^'^htrt  he  deceafcd  a  fewYears  fince)  and 
not  in  the  Country  of  New-England^  or  in  theProvince 
of  the  Majfacbufetts^  as  this  Author's  Words  infinuate. 
It  is  indeed  to  be  acknowleged  to  the  Praife  of  divine 
Grace,  that  in  the  late  Times  of  Awakening  in  New- 
England^  many^  we  hope,  were  converted  under  the  Mini^ 
Jlry  of  the  Vl^ord  \  not  to  a  particular  Se(5t  (as  Dr.  Gill 
fondly  imagines,  making  their  Converfion,  ar  lead  the 
Effect  of  it,  to  confift  in  their  being  enUghtned  into  the 
Ordinance  of  Believers  Baptifm,  whereby  the  Churches  of 
the  Baptift  Ferfwafton  have  been  much  increafed)    but  to 
real  Religion  and  Godlincfs.     But  the  Truth  is,   that 
tho'  the  late  Excefles  of  many  others  at  the  fameTime 
under  enthufiaftick  Imprefiions,  and  the  Errors,  Difor- 
ders,  and  Separations,  that  many  ran  into,  in  feveral 
Parts  of  the  Land, were  Matter  of  juft  Concern  &  Grief 
to  the  Minifters  of  the  Province  •,  yet,I  believe,it  may  be 
faid  with  a  generalConcurrence,that  thefurmifedlncreafc 
of  theBaptift  Churches  was  a  Thing  that  gave  them  the 
Icaft  Pain  or  Uneafinefs  of  anyThing  that  has  occur'd  ia 
the  late  religious  Commotions.  But 

3.  The  moll  egregious  Miftake  of  all  is,  that  "  the 
«'  Minifters  of  the  Colony  applied  to  Mr.  Bickinfon^  a 
"  Country  Minifter,to  write  inFavour  of  InfantSprink- 
"  ling."  This  I  can  certainly  teftify  to  be  a  falfe  Re- 
prefentation,  having  upon  Enquiry  been  well  afTured, 
that  not  one  of  the  Minifters  in  Bofton  ever  made  Ap- 
plication to  that  Gentleman  to  write  againft  the  Bap-^ 
tifts  ;  And  I  am  perfwaded,  fand  ir  is  the  Perfwafion  of 
all  whom  1  have  converfed  with)  that  it  was  not  at  the 
Motion  of  any  Minifter  mNew-Englandy  that  he  wrote 
his  Dialogue,  but  (moft  probably)  of  his  own  mecr. 
Motion,aad  with  a  View  (for  Reafons  more  peculiar  to 

B  3  hi^ 


6  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  ]        Chap.  L 

his  Station  &  Circumftances)  *  to  guard  his  own  People 
and  others  againft  the  Sedlaries  (and  their  Errors)  who 
are  faid  to  fwarm  in  fome  of  thofeParts  of  America^^a- 
kersy  Anahaptifts^  Arminians  and  Antinomians^zg2\n^  all, 
or  mofl  of  whom  he  has  written,  and  publifhcd  feveral 
Tra6ls,to  very  good  Purpofe.  And  therefore  Dr.  G/7/'s 
Correfpondent  (whoever  he  wasj  furely  was  too  hafty 
in  taking  up  his  Account  in  fo  bungling  a  Manner, 
which  he  has  tranfmitted  to  him,  with  the  Dialogue,for 
a  Reply  to  it,  who  feems  therefore  to  have  been  alarmed 
in  good  Earneft  at  theExecution  xh^Bialogue  had  done, 
and  was  likely  to  do  by  the  quick  &  large  Spread,  and 
general  Acceptance  of  it.  And  whether,or  how  far  his 
Champion  hath  fucceedcd  in  his  Defence  of  the  Caufe, 
which  he  has  fo  readily  and  refolutely  undertaken,  muft 
be  left  to  the  Reader's  Judgment,  when  he  has  impar- 
tially weigh'd  the  Confiderations  ofFer'd  in  Way  of  Ani- 
madverfion  on  his  Performance.  And  thus  much  for 
the  Occafion  of  his  Undertaking. 

Let  us  proceed  now  to  his  Remarks  on  the  ^itlePage. 
And  here  it  is  very  obvious  to  every  fenfible  unbias'd 
Reader,  how  this  AntipcTedobaptift  Writer  difcovers 
the  Spirit  of  his  Party  at  his  fiiil:  fetting  out.  For  hav- 
ing obferv'd,  "  the  running  Title  of  the  Pamphlet  he 
*'  has  undertaken  to  reply  to,  is,  The  Divine  Right  of 
*^  Infant  Baptifm  -,"  he  adds  upon  it,  "  But  if  it  is  of 
''  divine  Right,it  is  of  God,&if  it  is  of  God — it  mufl  be 
*'  notified  fomewhere  or  other  in  his  Word  -,  wherefore 
*'  the  Scripture  muft  be  fearch'd  into —  and  upon  the 
*'  moft  diligent  Searchjit  will  be  found  that  there  is  not 
*'  the  leaft  mention  of  it  in  it  -,  that  there  is  noPrecept 
*'  enjoining  it,  or  direBing  to  the  Obfervationofity  nor 
*'  any  Inflance,  Example  or  Precedent,  encouraging 
*'  fuch  a  Practice  ;  nor  any  Thing  there  faid  or  done,that 
•'  gives  anj  Reafon  to  believe^  that  it  is  the  Will  of  God 

■      "  that 

*  I  am  fince  Informed  by  a  worthy  Gentleman  in  thofe  Parts,  that 
it  was  at  the  Requell  and  Perfwafion  ot  fome  Mmifter  in  his 
Neighbourhood,  that  he  wrote  that  Piece. 


Chap.  I>  <?/  Infant-Baptifm.  7 

<«  that  fuch  a  RiteJhouJd  he  ohferved  %  wherefore  it  will 
«'  appear  to  be  entirely  an  humane  Invention ^2iv\6.  as  fuch, 
«'  to  be  rejedled."     This  is  faid  with  an  Air  of  Aflli- 
ranee  peculiar  to  warm  and  zealous  Bigots,and  to  none 
more,  'tis  obferv'djthan  to  thofe  of  thisSed:.     I  am  loth 
to  think,  this  is  the  Refult  of  Dr.GiWs  cool  Judgment, 
fincehe  has  vented  it  fo  indifcreetly  :  If  he  could,  for  a 
whilCjhave  reftrain'd  the  overflowing  of  his  Zeal,  'till  he 
had  finifhed  his  Arguments  andObjedlions,  this  PafTagc 
might  with  averylittleAlteration,have  flood  with  abetter 
Grace  at  the  End  of  his  Book —  for  it  carries  in  it  the 
Sound  of  a  ^od  erat  demonjirandum  at  the  Conclufion 
of  an  Argument.     And  for  my  Part,  I  nnufl  confefs, 
that  I  was  not  much  difappointed,  when  upon  reading 
thefe  flrong  Lines,  I  concluded,  that  I  had  already  met 
with  the  main  Strength  of  his  Pertormance.     For  this 
is  the  Method  of  thofe  who  endeavour  to  carry  their 
Point  by  Confidence,  Hear,    and  vigorous  AfTertions, 
rather  than  by  the  tedious  and  dull  Way  of  calm  and 
clofe  Reafoning.     And  let  me  alfo  obferve,  that  the 
Conclufion,  which  this  Gentleman  has  here  drawn  up, 
feems  not  only  to  go  beyond  the  Force  of  all  his  Argu- 
ments (which,it  is  the  Defign  of  thefe  Remarks  to  make 
evident)  but  even  beyond  what  he  himfelf  intended  by 
them.     For  perhaps  it  may  be  faid  without  offering  any 
Violence  to  his  Expreffions,  if  it  be  true,  that  theBap- 
tifm  of  Infants  "  is  entirely  an  humane  Invention,"  and 
that  it  is  not  theWill  of  God, ''  that  fuch  a  Rite  fhould 
be  obferved,"  as  he  has  confidently  afferted,  then  Bap- 
tifm  itfelf  mufl  be  rejedled  as  an  humane  Invention,  as 
well  as  the  Application  of  it  to  Infants  •,   for  if  it  be 
abfolutely  and  entirely  of  human  Invention^  then  it  is  in 
no  Refpedl  to  be  regarded  as  a  divine  Inftitution,  no 
more  in  P^efpedl  of  its  general  Nature,  as  Baptifm,  than 
in  Refped  of  it's  particular  Application,  as  Infant  Bap- 
iifm.     For  to  fay,  that  it  is  entirely  an  humane  Inven- 
tion, and  a  Rite  that  it  is  not  the  Will .  of  God  fliould 
be  obferv'd,  is  as  much  as  to  fay,  that  the  Rite  of  Bap- 

B  4  t;fm 


$  ^A  Dejtnu  of  tie  Divine  Right       Chap.  I, 

tifm  adminiftred  to  Infants,  is  in  its  whole  Eflence  of 
human  Invention.  And  what  could  si^aker  fay  more  ? 
Thus  it  many  Times  happens,  that  Men  in  the  Abun- 
dance of  their  Zeal,  are  prompted  to  fay  morCjthan  they 
are  capable  of  proving,  or  aim  at  proving.  We  fhall 
fee  in  the  Sequel, whether  the  Pradice  of  Infant-Baptifm 
be  not  to  be  found  inScripture,or  founded  on  Scripture, 
or  whether  there  be  not  anyTbing  there  /aid  or  done^ihat 
Hgnifies  it  to  be  a  divine  Inftitution.  In  the  mean 
Time,  Let  not  him  that  girdetb  on  his  Harnefs^boajt  him- 
felf^  as  he  that  putteth  it  off. 

But  Dr.  Gill  feems  to  have  managed  here  very  pre- 
pofteroufly:  for  (if  I  may  be  allowed  in  myTurn  to  cri- 
ticize a  little  upon  the  Title-Page  of  his  Work,  which 
runs  thus,  ne  Divine  Right  of  Infant Baptifm  examined^ 
end  difproved)  he  pretends  to  examine  the  Proofs  for 
Infant-Baptifm,  before  he  gives  Judgment  againft  it  ; 
but  in  his  Entrance  on  his  Work,  he  has  plainly  fore- 
warned his  Readers  (in  the  Paflage  I  have  cited^  what 
Sort  of  Examination  he  is  to  expedl,  how  impartial  and 
fair  •,  after  he  hath  pre-judged  the  Caufc,  by  a  pofitive 
Decifion  againft  the  faid  Divine  Right.and  fo  has  pafTed 
Sentence  before  Trial.  And  if,  after  this,theEvidences 
on  which  he  grounds  the  Condemnation  of  Infant-Bap- 
tifm appear  light,  to  an  impartial  Mind,  we  muft  caft 
Prejudice  into  the  Scale,  and  that  will  give  them  their 
full  Weight  But  fays  he,  "  If  there  be  no  fuch  Thing 
('as  the  Divine  Right  of  Infant  Baptifm J  "  theAuthor" 
(of  the  Dialogue)  "  muft  have  a  very  difficult  Tafk  to 
"  illuftrate  and  confirm  it" — tis  granted  :  But  if  there 
be  fuch  a  Thing  (as  we  make  no  Doubt  but  {here  is, 
and  ihall  prove  there  is,as  confident  as  Dr.  Gill  is  of  the 
contrary)  then  thofe  muft  venture  a  fad  Chance,  who 
take  upon  them  to  deny  and  deride  it. 

Iq  the  next  Place  our  Author  has  fomething  to  fay 
to  the  Method  &  Porm  of  the  Pamphlet  he  is  writing 
againft  j  the  Writer  of  it  having  chofen  to  caft  his 
Subject  into  *^  the  Form  of  a  Dialogue  between  a  Mini- 

fter 


Chap.  I.  •f  Infant-Baptlfm.'  9 

fter  and  one  of  his  ParifWoners,  or  Neighbours."  To 
this  he  fays,  "That  a  By-ftander"  (befiire  he  means  a 
zealous  Antipasdobaptift)  "  will  be  ready  to  conclude, 
"  that  fuch  a  Way  of  writing  is  chofe,that  he  might  have 
"  the  Opportunity  of  making  his  Antagonift  fpeak 
"  what  he  pleafes  •,"  and  that  "  he  would  have  adeda 
<*  very  unwife  Part,  had  he  put  Arguments  and  Ob- 
"  jedions  into  his  Mouth  which  he  tho'c  he  could  not 
"  give  any  tolerable  Anfwer  to."  Pag.  3.  And  again, 
*^  He  has  taken  care  not  to  fuffer  him  to  fay  fuch 
*'  Things,  that  he  was  not  able  to  anfwer."  Pag.  4.  ' 
Anf,  I  am  morally  fure,  that  the  Author  of  the  Dia- 
logue did  not  chufe  thatWay  of  writing,for  the  Reafons 
that  Dr.  Gill  has  invented  for  him,  to  caftReproach  and 
Difparagement  on  his  Performance  •,  and  that  he  never 
purpofely  declined  the  putting  any  Objedion  orArgu- 
ment  into  the  Mouth  of  his  Antagoniit,  from  a  Senfe 
of  his  Inability  to  anfwer  it.  His  faying,  he  took  Care 
not  to  put  fuch  Arguments  and  Objections  into  the  Mouth 
of  his  Antagonift,  as  he  was  not  able  to  anfwer^  01  which 
he  thd't  he  could  not  give  any  tolerable  Anfwer  /^,fuppofes 
thofe  Arguments  and  Objedlions  he  did  put  into  his 
Mouth,  he  tho't  he  was  able  to  anfwer.  Now  all  the 
Queftion  is,  whether  the  Anfwers  he  has  given,  be  folid, 
and  fufficient,  and  this  alone  is  contefted  by  Dr.  Gill 
in  his  Reply.  But  if  it  be  granted  that  he  has  given 
not  only  tolerable,  but  folid  and  fatisfadory  Anfwers 
to  the  Qiieries  &  Objedlions  in  the  Dialogue,  then  the 
Caufe  of  the  Antipaedobaptift  muft  beyond  all  Difpute 
fall  to  the  Ground  without  Remedy  •,  for  I  defy  the 
moft  zealous,  learned,  and  fubtleof  the  Antipjedobap- 
tifts  to  produce  any  other  Arguments  or  Objections 
againft  Infant-Baptifm,for  Matter  or  Subftance  different 
from,  or  of  greater  Weight  than  thofe  produced,  (tho* 
but  briefly  infifted  on)  in  the  Dialogue.  And  if  the 
Caufe  of  Antipasdobaptifm  mull  ftand  or  fall  according 
to  the  Strength  or  Weaknefs  ot  thofe  Arguments  and 
pbjedionsj    then  it  is  evident  that  the  Author  of  the 

Dialogue 


I  a  ^A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right       Chap.  I. 

Dialogue  did  not  induilrioufly  forbear,  to  put  into  the 
Mouth  of  his  Antagonifts  the  ftrongeft  and  mod  mate- 
rial Arguments  he  could  think  of,  for  the  Support  of 
his  Caufe,  from  a  Confcioufnefs  of  his  being  unable  to 
anfwer  them.  And  does  not  Dr. Gill  implicitly  confefs 
as  much  ?  For  what  elfe  is  the  chief  Scope  of  his  Reply, 
but  to  Ihew  the  Strength  of  theParilhioner's  Objedions 
andArgumentsCtho'  he  thinks  them  but  poorly  manag'd 
in  the  Dialogue  J  and  the  Weaknefs  of  the  Minifter's 
Anfwers.  He  complains,  that  theParifhioner  is  made 
to  defend  the  Principles  he  was  about  to  embrace,  "  in 
a  mean,  and  trifling  Manner."P^^.3,  Be  this  fo,or  not, 
yet  he  is  miflaken  in  the  Caufe ;  the  true  Reafons 
undoubtedly  were,  i.  Becaufe  all  Errors  &  Objedlions 
againft  the  Truth,  when  flrip'd  of  their  Varnifh  and 
Sophiftry,  and  exprefs'd  in  plain  Langu3gfe,will  appear 
mean  and  trifling.  2.  Becaufe  it  is  evident,the Author 
of  that  Pamphlet  defigned  Brevity  (as  appears  from  its 
TitJej  and  not  to  enlarge  either  on  the  Objedions  or 
Replies,  but  to  reprefent  in  a  few  plain  Words,the  mofl 
material  Objedions  againft  Infant-Baptifm,  with  the 
proper  Anfwers  to  them  ;  and  not  to  fet  forth  the  one 
or  the  other  in  all  the  Light  and  Force  that  Language 
could  poflTibly  give  them,  which  had  been  inconfiftent 
with  his  Defign.  We  know,  that  a  great  deal  more  has 
been  faidby  theAntip3edobaptifts,and  a  great  deal  more 
has  been  faid  in  Anfwer  to  them  ;  But  cofifidering  the 
Succindlnefs  and  Brevity,  which  that  Author  defign'd 
in  compofing  his  Trad,  fo  far  as  that  would  admit,  he 
has  colieded  and  fet  in  order  the  main  Strength  of  his 
Adverfary'sObjcdions,  with  pertinent  Replies  to  them, 
nor  has  he  wav'dtheConfideration  ot  anyThing  material 
on  their  Part. 

But  fincc  Dr.G/7/  allows,  *'  Every  Man  that  engages 
*'  in  a  Controverfy,  may  [write  ia  what  Form  and 
*  Method  he  will  j"  I  hope  there  is  no  harm  done,  in 
chufing  the  Form  of  a  Dialogue  ;  which  is  a  Way  of 
writing  that  iomc  of  the  moll  celebrated  Polemical 

Divines 


Chap.  I.  tif  Infant-Baptifm;  1 1 

Divines  have  chofen,  in  a  more  lively  and  familiar 
Manner  to  difcufs  Points  in  Controverfy,  and  which 
has  fomething  in  it  peculiarly  agreable  to  Mankind,and 
is  more  proper  to  engage  the  Reader's  Attention  ^  nor 
has  it  been  imputed  to  them  as  a  Fault ;  tho*  it  had 
been  eafy  tor  their  Adverfaries  to  reproach  them,  as 
Dr.  Gill  docs  the  Author  of  the  Dialogue,by  faying,that 
they  chofe  that  Way  to  make  their  Antagonifts  fpeak 
what  they  pleafe,  and  to  put  juft  fo  much,  and  no  more 
into  their  Mouths  than  they  thought  they  were  able  to 
anfwer.  Perhaps,  Dr.  Gill  had  better  confulted  his 
.Credit,  if  he  had  acquiefced  in  theArguments  produced 
in  theDialogue,  as  lighdy  as  he  efteems  them  -,  unlefs  he 
had  drop'd  fome  Things  in  his  Reply,rather  more  mean 
and  triEing,  in  Point  of  Reafoning,  than  any  Thing 
which  occurs  in  that  Tradb. 

But  that  which  fecms  the  chief  Matter  of  his  Com- 
plaint, is,  that  the  Author  he  is  writing  againft,  "  has 
not  made  his  Friend  to  a6t  in  Charader"  &cc.  having 
reprefented  him  as  a  Man  of  Ingenuity  as  well  as  Piety. 
Anfw.  If  Dr.  Gill  takes  it  for  granted,  that  it  is  theCha- 
radler  of  a  young  Antipsedobaptift,  or  of  one  that  has  a 
flrong  Inclination  to  thatPerfwafion,to  be  haughty  and 
alTuming,  bold,  and  talkative,   confident  ot  his  own 
Opinion,  impatient  of  Contradidion,   apt  to   cenfure 
others  that  differ  from  him,  and  to  condemn  them  as 
being  in  an  Error,  which  is  obferv'd  to  be  too  often  the 
Cafe  •,  then  it  muft  be  confefs'd,  that  theAuthor  of  the 
Dialogue  has  made  his  Friend  (who  had  begun  to  imx- 
bibe  the  Principles  of  Antipsedobaptifrn  J  to  ad  a  little 
out  of  Character,  in  reprefenting  him,  as  humble,  and 
teachable,  open  toConvi6lion,propounding  his  Scruples 
and  Objedlions  with  Modefty,  difpofed  to  weigh,  with- 
out Prejudice,  the  Arguments  on  the  other  Side,   and 
ready  to  receive  Light  and  Satisfaction,  when  offered, 
and  to  change  his  Sentiments  on  the  propofal  of  clear 
convincing  Evidence  -,  which  is  the  Character,  the  Pa- 
riihioner  appears  all  along  in  the  Dialogue  to  fuftain  ; 


12  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  \, 

yet  all  this  agrees  perfedtly  well  with  aMan  of  Ingenuity, 
yea,is  a  rcquifite  Ingredient  in  fuch  aCharafter.   I  know 
not  what  Idea  Dr.Gill  has  form'd  of  Ingenuityyhut  with- 
out thefe  Dilpofitions  &  Qualifications  laft  mcntion'd, 
noMan  fhall  ever  deferve  with  me,theChara6lerof  aMan 
of  Ingenuity.  So  that  on  this  Account  I  apprehend,  there 
is  no  Reafon  to  complain  of  the  want  of  a  juftDecorum 
in  theDialogue.     But  I  have  dwelt  long  enough  already, 
if  not  too  long,  on  thefe  Impertinences,  which  are  quite 
foreign  to  the  main  Subjedt.     Wherefore,  leaving  our 
Author  to  pleafe  himfelf  in  his  Conjeftures  about  the 
fecret  Views  and  Defigns  of  the  Author  of  theDialogue, 
in  contriving  the  Method  of  it,  which  I  am  perfwaded, 
no  Body  clfe  would  have  thought  of,  or  fufpedled,  had 
not  this  acute  Gentleman  by  his  deep  Penetration  into 
the  Secrets  of  the  Heart  pretended  ,to  difcover  them  ; 
I  fhall  pafs  on  to  his  fecond  Chapter,   with  this  only 
Remark,  that  tho'  Dr.  G/7/,  I  am  perfwaded, would  take 
it  ill  to  be  denied  the  Charader  of  "  a  Man  of  confide- 
rable  Reading,"  yet  the  Confutation  of  his  Arguments 
and  Objections,  I  am  fure,  would  give  a  Man  no  great 
Caufe  to  value  himfelf  upon  "  doing  a  very  great  Ex- 
ploit," tho'  at  the  fame  Time,   he  might  fee  Reafon 
enough  from  the  Spirit  that  appears  in  his  Writings,  to 
defpair  of  being  able  "  to  convince  and  filence  him.'* 


r^K^^C^ 


CHAP. 


.:;  cf  InFant-Baptifm.'  ^i  j 

G    H    A    P.       IL 

TheConfequences  of  embracing  Antipcedo^ 
baptifm  by  fuch  as  have  been  baptiz'd  in 
Infancy,  examined. 

jN  this  Chapter,  our  Author  proceeds  to  difcufs 
the  Confequences  of  embracing  Antip^dobap- 
tifm.     And  here  he  tells  us, that  "thelvlinifter 
*'  in  order  to  frighten  his  Parifhioner  out  of  his  Prin- 
**  ciple  of  adult  Baptifm,  he  was  inclined  to  fuggeil 
"  terrible  Confequences,   that  would  follow  upon  it.'* 
Whereas,  on  the  Minifler's  Part,  there  appears  nothing 
but  a  calm,  and  ferious  Addrelsto  the  Reafon  andCon- 
fcience  of  his  Parifhioner  :  but   it  feems  that   to  offer 
Matter  of  Convidlion  to  an  Antip^dobaptifl^to  reclaim 
him  from  his  Error,  is  to  frighten  him  ^  it  being  Matter 
of  Dread  to  fuch  a  P  erf  on  to  have  the  Confequences  of  his 
beloved  Error  fet  in  a  true  Light .     But  Dr.  Gill  may  be 
told,  it  is  not  the  Way  of  the  P^dohaptijis^  to  alarm  or 
frighten  Men  out  of  their  religiousOpinions  j  they  have 
no  Need  of  fuch  Artifices,  efpecially  in  managing  the 
Controverfy  with  the  Antipa:dohaptihs^  having  Reafon 
and  Scripture  on  their  Side  j   and  if  at  any  Time  they 
meet  with  Perfons  of  fuch  an  unhappy  Turn  of  Mind, 
or  under  fuch  ftrong  PrepofTelTions,   as  not  to  be  con- 
vinced by  thofe  rational  Methods,  they  are  content  to 
leave  them  to  fland  or  fall  to  their  own  Mafler.     The 
Confequences  of   a  Man's  efpoufing'the  Principle   and 
Pradicc  of  the  Antip^dobaptifts,  as  colleded  from  the 
Dialogue,  he  has  reduced   to  thefe  five  Heads,  viz, 
"   I.  His  renouncing  his  Baptifm  in  Infancy.     2.  His 
**  vacating  the  Covenant  betv/een  God  &:  him,  he  v/as 
"  brought  into  thereby.     3.  Renouncing  all  ocherOr- 
*'  dinances  of  the  Gofpel,  as  the  Minitlry  of  the  Word, 
*'  and  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper.     4.  1  hat 

''  Chrift 


'14;  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  IL 

"  Chrift  muft  have  forfaken  hisChurch,for  many  Ages, 
**  and  not  made  good  the  Promife  of  his  Prefence  in 
«  this  Ordinance.  5.  That  there  could  be  no  fuch 
*'  Thing  as  Baptifm  in  the  World  now,  neither  among 
"  T^dobaftifts^  nor  Antip^dobaptifts.'''   Pag.  5. 

The  two  firft  of  thefe  Confequences  more  nearly  af- 
fe6i:ing  the  Subjedt  in  Debate,  I  Ihali  for  that  Reafon 
more  particularly  confider,  and  examine,  and  then  at- 
tend to  what  he  has  to  fay  to  the  Reft. 

I.  As  to  the  firft,  viz.  A  MarCs  renouncing  his  Bap « 
tijm  in  Infancy  \  it  is  not  di redly  denied  by  Dr.  G/7/, 
that  a  Man  who  has  been  baptized  in  Infancy,  by  ef- 
poufing  the  Principles  of  the  Antipadobaptifts^  and  re- 
ceiving Baptifm  in  theirWay,  does  by  juH  Conftrudion 
renounce  hisBaptifm  in  Infancy,  wherein  he  was  folemn- 
]y  dedicated  to  God  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghoft. 
But  I  fhall  undertake  to  fhew,  that  the  embracing  An- 
tipjedobaptifm^  by  one  baptiz'd  in  Infancy,  is  a  virtual 
renouncing  of  a  true  Chriftian  Baptifm,  and  there  being 
therein  a  Dedication,  in  Fa6l,  of  the  Party  baptized 
unto  God,  (whatever  Miftakes  may  be  fappos'd  either 
in  the  one,  or  the  other, )  it  is  unlawful  to  renounce 
cither.  This  is  denied  and  contradided  by  our  Au- 
thor •,  his  Words  are  (ibid.)  "  He  cannot  be  faid  to  re- 
•'•  jed  &  renounce  the  Ordinance  of  Baptifm,  for  when 
*'  he  embraces  the  Principle  of  Adult  Baptifm,  and 
*'  adts  up  to  it,  he  receives  tl^e  true  Baptifm  which  the 
*'  Word  of  God  warrsfhts.  — -. —  But  it  feems  it  is  a 
"  Renunciation  of  his  Baptifm  in  Infancy  -,  and  what 
*'  of  that  ?  it  fhould  be  prov'd  firft,  that  that  is  Bap- 
*'  tifm,  and  that  it  is  good,  and  valid,  before  it  can  be 
*'  charged  as  an  Evil  to  renounce  it,"  &c.  The  Mean- 
ing of  all  this  is,  tho'  it  be  granted  that  a  Man  renoun- 
ces his  Baptifm  in  Infancy,  yet  he  cannot  be  faid  to  re- 
nounce any  Baptifm  which  Chrift  has  inftitutcd,  or  the 
Word  of  God  warrants  ;  ;  His  Baptifm  received  in  his 
infant  Age,  being  for  that  Reafon  a  meer  Nullity :  Nor 
is  he  to  be  blamedj  but  rather  commended  for  renounc- 
ing; 


Chap.  11:  of  Infanc-Baptlfm;  f  3 

ing  fuch  Baptifm,  as  his  following  Words  import. 
Then  he  muft  intend  to  fay,  that  the  Age  of  a  Perfon, 
or  Time  of  receiving  Baptifm,  is  eflential  to  the  Ordi- 
nance. So  that  if  it  be  not  receiv'd  at  a  proper  Age^ 
it  is  null  and  void  ;  for  the  Mode  comes  not  into  Dif- 
pute  here,  (tho'  even  that  is  but  a  Circumftance  and 
not  of  the  EfTence  of  the  Ordinance,  as  fhall  be  iliewed.) 
But  he  lays  the  Nullity,  or  Invalidity  of  Baptifm  chief.y 
on  its  being  adminiftred  in  the  infant  Age  ;  which  he 
could  not  do,  unlefs  he  made  the  Age  to  be  of  the  Ef- 
fence  of  the  Inftltution  ;  for  the  Abfence  or  Want  of 
nothing  but  what  is  EfTential  to  the  Ordinance,  can  be 
faid  to  deftroy  its  EfTence,  or  render  it  a  Nullity. 

What  he  has  here  advanc'd  upon  the  Suppofition  of 
his  Principle  {that  adult  Baptifm  is  the  only  true  Baptifm 
warranted  by  the  Word  of  God)  might  bring  on  the  main 
Difpute,  but  I  purpof<.ly  wave  it,  in  this  Place,  and  fhall 
only  {2L'^^nat  it  is  a  manifest  Error^to  fay,that  theTime, 
or  Age  of  a  Man's  Life  is  efiential  to  the  Ordinance  of 
Baptifm,  fo  far  as  that  the  Want  of  a  proper  Regard 
thereto  Ihould  render  the  whole  Ordinance  invalid. 
For  there  is  nothing  of  this  mention'd  in  the  Inftitution, 
we  take  theOrdinance,as  Chrift  has  inflituted  it,to  con- 
fift  in  the  v/alhing  with  Water  in  the  Name  of  the  Sa- 
cred Trinity,  pcrform'd  by  an  authoriz'd  Adminiflrator 
to  a  Subjedl  capable.  This  is  the  Subltance  of  the  Or- 
dinance, this  Chrift  has  inftituted,  and  this  we  inviola- 
bly obferve  ;  and  Baptifm  thus  adminiftred,  is  a  true 
Chriftian  Baptifm  ;  but  the  Age  or  Time  wherein  it  is 
to  be  adminiftred,  whether  in  Infancy,  or  at  adult  Age, 
is  but  a  Circumftance,  and  not  of  the  Eftence  of  the 
Ordinance,  and  aCircumftance  not  exprefsly  determin*d 
in  the  Inftitution,  but  we  are  left  for  Diredion  in  this 
Matter  to  other  general  Rules  of  Scripture  :  which,  I 
fhall  Ihew  hereafter,  fufhciently  warrant  theAdminiftra- 
tion  of  this  Ordinance  to  fome  Infants.  In  the  mean 
Time,  our  Adverfaries  can't  with  the  leaft  Shadow  of 

Reafon 


\6  ^  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Gh  ap,  II, 

Reafon  charge  us  with  Will-Worfhip  in  baptizing  In- 
fants ;  for  the  Ordinance  is  not  our  Invention,  nor  a 
Rite  of  Man's  Devifingjbut  an  Inftitution  of  Chrift,  and 
ve  receive  and  obferve  it  according  to  his  Inftitution, 
without  any  eflential  Failure  in  the  Adminiftration, 
fuppofing  the  recipient  Subjedl  capable  ;  tho'  they  may 
think  we  fail  in  the  Circumftance  of  Age. 

I  am  aware,  that  Dr.  G/7/,  or  fome  Antipaiohapifi 
may  take  me  up  fhort  here,  and  fay,  But  Infants  are 
not  Subjects  capable  of  the  Ordinance  :  they  can't  be 
taught,  can't  believe,  &c.  For  Anfwer  hereunto,  I  af- 
firm, and  will  prove,  that  Infants  are  capable  of  the 
Ordinance  of  Baptifm  ;  whether  they  ought  to  be  bap- 
tiz'd  is  another  Queftion  \  but  that  they  are  capable  of 
it,  and  that  it  ought  not  therefore  to  be  denied  them, 
by  Reafon  of  any  Incapacity  on  their  Part  of  receiving 
it,  is  evident  \  for  they  are  capable  of  the  Thing  figni- 
fied  in  Baptifm,  and  of  the  outward  Sign,  or  Seal. 

I.  Infants  are  capable  of  cleanfing  by  the  Blood  of 
Chrift,  and  of  Regeneration  by  the  Spirit,  which  is  the 
Thing  fignified  in  Baptifm  :  according  to  the  Import 
of  thofe Words  of  our  Saviour,  Job,  3.  5.  Except  a  Man 
(Gr.  ean  mee  tis^  except  any  one,  whether  aMan  grown, 
or  an  Infant  j  be  born  of  fVater^and  of  theSpirit^he  cannot 
enter  into  the  Kmgdom  of  God.  And  thofe  of  the  Apoftle, 
Tit.  3.5.  Hefaved  us  by  the  wafJoing  of  Regeneration  Mz, 
Whence  it  follows,  that  if  Infants  be  incapable  of 
the  regenerating  Mercy  of  God,  fignified  in  Baptifm, 
they  are  incapable  of  Salvation,  dying  in  the  Age  of 
Infancy.  But  if  they  are  capable  ot  the  Malady  of  na- 
turalCorruption,  tranfmitced  to  them  from  fallen  Adam^ 
(whereby  they  are  become  obnoxious  to  Death)  without 
their  explicit  Knowledge  and  Confent,  in  a  Way  and 
Manner  beyond  our  Comprehenfion,  as  all  muft  grant 
that  believe  the  original  Defilement  of  Man's  Nature  ; 
and  as  our  Saviour's  following  Words  import,  i',  6. 
That  which  is  born  of  thcFlefh  is  Flefh — Who  can  doubt 
but  that  they  are  in  the  like  inconceivable  Manner  ca* 

pable 


Chap.  II.  ef  Infant-Baptifm.  t<j 

pable  of  the  Remedy  from  the  fccond  Aiam^  by  the  re- 
generating Grace  of  his  Spirit,  without,  or  betore  any 
cxphcit  Knowledge  of  him,  or  Confent  to  his  Covenant  ? 
Efpecialiy  fince  the  Apoftle  puts  ^nuch  more  into  the 
Merit  and  Grace  of  Chrift  to  fave,  than  was  in  the  Sin 
of  Adam  to  condemn  and  deftroy  Rom.  5.  15,  17. 
Moreover,  God  has  promifed  his  Spirit  to  regenerate 
the  Infants  of  his  People.  Deut.  30.  6.  "The  Lord  thy 
God  will  circumcife  thineHeart^i^  the  Heart  of  thy  Seed^Scc. 
To  circumcife  the  Hearty  is  to  regenerate  the  Heart, 
naturally  depraved  -,  Regeneration  being  the  fpiritual 
Part  of  that  initiating  Riie  of  Cit-cumcifion,  under  the 
Old  Teftament,  as  it  is  of  Baptifm  under  the  New. 
And  the  Phrafe —  thine  Hearty  and  th:  Heart  of  thy  Seedy 
leads  us  to  underftand  the  Promife  here,  m  the  fame 
Extent  with  the  Covenant,  Gen.  17.  7.  — to  be  a  God 
to  thee^  and  to  thy  Seed  Which,  we  are  fure,  extends  to 
the- infant  Seed.  /.  12.  And  the  Spirit  is  exprefsly  pro- 
mifed to  fuch,  fo  the  End  mention' J,in Terms  more  fui- 
table  to  the  Gofpel  Sacrament  of  Initiation,  being  figni- 
fied  therein.  Ifai.  44.  3.  I  will  pour  JVater  on  him  that 
is  thirsty y  and  Floods  upon  the  dry  Ground ;  /  will  pour  my 
Spirit  upon  thy  Seed,  and  my  Bleffing  upon  thine  Off 'spring. 
Which  is  alio  to  be  underflood,  in  analogy  to  the  Cove- 
nant,to  include,  at  leail,  their  infant  Seed  ;  which  proves 
them  not  only  capable  of  the  Grace  of  God,  but  that 
many  of  them  are  made  adlual  Partakers  of  it :  How 
clfe  can  the  divine  Veracity  in  the  i^romife  be  falv'd  ? 
And  oi  Jeremiah,  and  John  the  Baptift,  we  read,  that  the 
one  yftM  ftn^ifedyh'^  other  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghor^^  fror/t 
his  Mother's  IVomb,  Jer.  i.  5,  Luk.  i.  15.  If  thole  were 
extiaordinary  Perfons  (as  I  grant,  rhsfe  ExprelTions  may 
denoce  fomcthing  peculiar  &  extraordinary  in  the  Work 
of  the  Spirit  in  them,  beyond  whac  is  ordi.iarily  nccefTary 
to  the  Salvation  of  Infants,)  yet  thefe  Examples  fhew 
>vhat  Infants  are  capable  of. 

2.  They  are  capable  of  being  entred  into  Covenant 
^i'lih,  God.  For  'tis  paftDifpute,  the  Children  of  the  Jews 

C  were 


i8f  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  II.- 

were  thus  initiated.  God  took  them  into  federal  Relatioa 
to  himfelf,  together  with  their  Parents,  in  his  Covenant 
yN\l\-\  Abraham:  Gei^.  17.  7.  And  afterwards  in  that  fo- 
lemn  Renewal  of  the  Covenant  in  the  Land  of  Moab  by 
the  Miniftry  of  Mofes^  the  whole  Body  of  the  Nation, 
Men,  Women  and  Children,  entred  into  Covenant  with 
God,  even  their  little  Ones^  for  which  we  have  the  exprefs 
Words  of  M(?/^j.  Deut.  29.  10,  11,  12.  Tefland  thisDay 
all  of  you  before  the  Lord  your  Gcd^  your  Captains  of  your 
Tribes^  your  Elders^  and  your  Officers^  with  all  the  Men  of 
Ifrael^  your  little  Ones^  your  PFives^  &c.  'That  thou  fhouldfi 
enter  into  Covenant  with  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  into  his 
Oathy  which  the  Lord  thy  God  maketh  with  thee  this  Day. 
If  any  deny  the  Covenant  with  Abraham,  and  the  fubfe- 
quent  Covenants,  in  ''vhich  Children,  and  little  Ones,  are 
evidently  comprehended,  to  be  the  Covenant  of  Grace, 
(the  Affirmative  fhall  be  vindicated  in  its  proper  Place, 
here  I  am  only  Ihewing,  Infants  are  capable  of  being  Co- 
venanters, and  treated  as  fuch)  yet  no  Reafon  can-  be 
given  why  Infants  may  be  admitted  into  any  other  divine 
Covenant  with  Men,  and  not  into  the  Covenant  of  Grace 
and  Salvation  •,  their  Incapacity  in  the  latter  Cafe,  can 
be  no  more  pleaded,  than  in  the  former. 

3.  Infants  are  capable  of  the  Seal  of  the  Covenant,  and 
had  it  adminifter'd  to  them  under  the  Old  Teftament. 
It  cannot  be  doubted  either  that  Circumcifion  was  a  Seal 
or  Token  of  the  Covenant,  for  God  hath  exprefsly  declar- 
ed it  to  be  fo.  Gen.  17.  11.  It  (i.  e.  Circumcifion)/??^// 
he  a  Token  of  the  Covenant  betwixt  me,  and  you,  ^  Or  that 
it  was  to  be  adminiftred  to  infant  Children,  foi'  God  ex-- 
prefsly  commanded  it  to  be  fo.  /.  12.  He  that  is  Eight- 
Days  Old,  fhall  he  circumcifed.  And  who  can  deny 't^^t 
Infants  are  as  capable  now  of  the  initiating  Seal  of  the 
Covenant,  as  they  were  then }  Whether  it  be  tllis  Will  of 
God  that  it  fliould  be  applied  to  them  in  thefe  Days  of 
rhe  Gofpei,  is  difputed  by  our  Antagonills  ;  yet  none^' 
iljrely,  can  rcalbn-ably  make  a  QueftioD;  whether  they  are 

now 


Chap.  II..  cf  Infant-Bap tifm."  "19 

now  capable  of  it,  fince  it  was  formerly  to  be  applied  to 
them  by  the  divine  Inflitution  and  Command. 

4.  Infants  are  capable  of  all,  or  the  principal  Ends  of 
Baptifm.     Firft^  Is  Baptifm  defign'd  to  be  a  Symbol  of 
AdmiiTion  into  the  vifible  Church,  and  a  Badge  of  difcri- 
mination  from  Infidels  and  Aliens,  as  Circumcifion  was 
of  old  ?    And  was  nor  Baptifm  inftituted  to  be  the  facred 
Livery  of  Chnft'sDifciples  ?  Math. 2^.  19    And  are  not 
Infants  as  capable  of  this,  as  they  are  of  being  entred  into 
Covenant  with  God,  whereby  they  ?re  conflituted  Mem- 
bers of  his  vifible  Church  ?  Secondly.  Is  Baptifm  defign'd 
to  be  a  Ratification  of  the  Covenant  between  God  and 
us  •,  of  Privileges  to  be  confer'd  on  God's  Part,  and  of 
Duties  to  be  perform'd  on  ours  ?    And  are  not  Infants 
capable  of  both  thefe  ?     i.  There  are  peculiar  Mercies, 
Promifes,  Providences  and  fpiritual^  Privileges,   fecured 
on  God's  Part  to  his  Church  and  People,  which  belong 
not  to  the  Heathen  World.     Hence  Baptifm  is  repre- 
fented  as  the  Antitype  of  Noah's  Ark  ("which  faved  Noah . 
and  his  Family  from  the  Deluge,   i  Pei.  3.  20,  21.)  as 
it  diilinguifhes  a  People  entitled  to  fpecial  divine  Prefer  - 
vation.     It  alfo  qualifies  for  the  Privilege  of  Accefs  to 
God  in   the   facred  Ordinances  of  the  vifible  Church. 
Heb.  10.  22.  Let  us  draw  near — having  our  Bodies  wajhed 
with  pure  Water.  And  for  an  Inheritance  in  theKingdom 
of  Glory.    Hq  faves  us  by  the  wafloing  of  Regeneration. 
^it.  ^.  ^.  See  Joh.  ^.  ^..  Eph.  5.  26,  27. — 2.  There  are 
Obligations  to  Duties  of  Obedience  on  our  Part,  folemn- 
ly  confirmed  by  Baptifm.   Math.  28.  20.  teaching  them 
(the  baptized)  to  obferve  alll^hings  whatfoever  I  have  com- 
manded. See  alfo,  Rom.  6.  3,  4.  Gal.  3.  27.    i  Pet.  3  21. 
Now,  what  is  there  in  either  of  thefe,  that  Infants  are 
incapable  of;  are  not  Infants  capable  of  havingPrivileges 
fettled  and  confirm'd   to  them  without  their  Knowiege 
or  Confent  ?    Have  they  not  Need,  or   are  they  incapa- 
ble of  Pardon  and  cleanfing  in  the  Blood  of   Chrift  from 
original  Defilement,  and  of  the  Inheritance  of  Life  ?  Or 
of  the  Grace  and  Merit  of  the  Redeemer  in  their  Salva- 

C  2  ^  tioa 


20  At)efence  cf  the  DhlHe  Right         Chap.  II. 

tioDi  from  Sin  and  Death  ?  To  pronounce  this  of  Infants, 
is  to  pafs  a  Judgment  contrary  to  Scripture,  Rcafon  and 
Experience,  and  even  Humanity  itfelf,  contrary  to  the 
common  Meihods  of  Mankind.  Is  it  notMatter  of  daily 
Obfervation  among  Men,  that  an  Infant  may  have  an 
earthly  Inheritance  fettled  upon  him,  by  an  Inftrument 
drawn  up,  fign'd  and  feal'djcven  while  he  is  ignorant  of 
the  whole  Tranfa<5lion  ? 

Again,  are  not  Infants  capable  of  being  laid  under  Ob- 
ligations of  Duty  to  God,  which  as  they  grow  up,  they 
may  be  able  to  perform j  tho'  at  prefent  they  Idc  not  ? 
W  as  not  Circumcifion  a  Bond  upon  Infants  to  obey  the 
Law  of  Mofes  ?  Gal.  5.  3.  1  tejlify  to  every  Man  that  is 
cJrctimcifedy  that  he  is  a  Debtor  to  do  the  whole  Law,  And 
why  are  not  Chrillian  Infants  as  capable  of  the  baptifmal 
Obligation  to  obferve  the  Law  of  Chrift,whether  theyun- 
derftand&  confent,or  no  ?  For  asDr. Lightfoot  obferves,"!' 
"  The  Equity  of  theObligation  lies  not  in  theParty's  un- 
*'  derftanding  the  Thing,but  in  the  Equity  of  the  Thing 
*'  itfelf.  How  come  allMen  liable  toJdam'sSin  ?  TheE- 
*'  quity  of  imputing  it  to  them  makes 'em  Uable,as  they  are 
*'  in//^^;;;'sLoins&Covenant. — Children  atBaptifm  may 
**  comeunderObligation,not  becaufe  they  are  able  to  per- 
*'  form  theirDuty,or  to  know  it ;  but  the  Equity  of  the 
"  Thing  laies  it  on  them  ;  they  have  this  natural  Bond 
*'  upon  them,  as  Creatures  to  homage  God  -,  and  if  the 
*'  Sacramental  Bond  be  added,  they  are  bound  as  Chrif- 
*'  tians  to  homage  Chrift.  Why  Ihould  this  be  fo  mon- 
*'  flrous,  fince  they  are  as  much  capable  to  know  one,  as 
*'  the  other  ?"  Thefe Things  confider'd,  there  can  be  no 
rcaf-nabie  Doubt  of  the  Capacity  of  Infants  for  Baptifm  : 
Since  they  are  evidently  capable  of  the  Thing  fignified 
therein,  of  the  outward  Sign,  and  of  the  great  and  main 
Ends  of  the  Ordinance. 

Hence  ail  Objedtions  againft  the  Baptifm  of  Infants, 
from  their  Incapacity  of  the  Covenant  and  Sign  or  Seal 

of 

I  S.Y  hi3  Works  ;W»  II,  r^g,  uzf. 


Chap.il  ^  Infant-Baptifm;  2r 

of  it,  are  wholly  taken  off:  yet  in  fuchKind  of  Objedions 
lies  a  confiderable  Part,  if  not  the  principal,  of  our  Ad- 
vcrfaries  Strength  ;  '^Infants  are  not  Subjedls  capable  of 
Baptifm,  but  only  adult  Believers."  The  old  worn  out 
Cavil,that  has  been  often  anfwcr'd,  is,  that  Infants  can'c 
be  taught,  nor  learn,  they  can't  repent,nor  believe  (v/hich 
Things,  'tis  confeis'd,  are  prerequired  unto  Baptifm  of 
Perfons  f  adult  Age)  therefore  Infants  ought  not  to  be 
baptized  ;  which  is  as  much  as  to  fey,  that  becaufe  In- 
fants are  incapable  of  the  Qualificatioas  required  of  the 
Adult,  therefore  they  may  on  no  other  Account  or  Con- 
fideration  wharfoever,  be  admitted  to  Bap:ifm.  This  is 
the  whole  of  what  that  Plea  amounts  to,  and  how  weak 
and  inconclufive  this  Way  of  Reafoning  is,  appears  to 
every  Man  of  common  Senfe.  But  this  will  come  to  be 
confider'd  and  difcufs*d  hereafter.  In  the  mean  Time  it 
can't  be  fairly  de;  ied,  that  in  baptizing  Infants,  we  ad- 
minifter  the  true  Baptifm  which  Chrift  has  inftituted,  and 
that  to  a  capable  Subject:,  without  omitting  or  adding 
any  Thing  elTential  to  the  Infbitution.  The  Age  of  the 
Perfon  co  be  baptiz'd  being  but  a  Circumftacce  not  ex- 
prefsly  decermined,  it  there  be  any  Error  in  that  (as  our 
Adverfaries  fuppofe)  it  is  but  a  circumflantial  Error,  that 
does  not  invalidate  the  Ordinance.  God  did  indeed  m  the 
Inftitution  of  Circumcifion  (into  the  Room  whereof  wc 
afTert,  and  fhall  afterward  prove  againll  our  Author,that 
Baptifm  hath  now  fucceeded)  diredt  to,  and  command 
this  Circumftance  relating  to  the  Subje6l,  an  Infant  eight 
Days  old,  (Gen.  17.  12.)  But  in  Chrift's  Inftitution  of 
Baptifm,  there  is  nothing  exprcfs  either  for  Infancy  or 
adukAge  :  If  Chrift  had  but  mentioned  the  Adult,  with- 
out adding  any  exclufive  Particle  to  debar  Infants  -,  if  he 
had  faidjGi?,  teach^  or  Difciple,and  baftife  Men  &  Women 
grown  :  There  had  been  a  better  Pretence  for  holding 
precifely  to  the  Words  of  theCommifilon,  in  adminiftring 
Baptifm  only  to  grown  Perfons,  becaufe  then  it  would 
appear,  that  our  Saviour  defign'd  to  point  out  the  Age 
requifite  to  the  Subjects  qualified  to  receive  his  Baptifm  : 

C  3  Bue 


22  A  Defence  of  the  'Divine  Right  Chap.  II. 

But  there  is  no  Appearance  of  any  fuch  Defign  in  the 
Words  of  the  Inflitution  (refpeding  the  Age  of  the  Re- 
ceiver) as  they  ftand  in  the  Gofpeh  But  our  Lord  has 
left  his  Minifters  and  Churches  to  be  guided  in  Relation 
thereto,  by  the  general  Difcoveries  of  God's  Will,  whe- 
ther by  the  Light  of  Nature  or  Scripture- Revelation. 
And  hence  we  might  colled  an  irrefragable  Argument 
for  the  divine  Inftitution  of  Infant-Baptifm.  For  fince 
Infants  are  no  more  included,  nor  excluded  in  the  Words 
of  Iniiitution,  than  the  Adult,  no  mention  being  made 
either  of  the  one  or  the  other,  and  no  exprefs  Diredlion 
given  to  adminifter  Baptifm  to  the  one,  exclufive  of  the 
other  •,  if  we  can  gather  it  (tho'  by  ScriptureConfequence, 
or  general  Intimations  in  facred  Writ)  that  it  is  theW^ill 
of  God,  thac  the  Infants  of  Believers  fhould  be  admitted 
to  this  initiating  Ordinance  of  the  New  Teftament  (  as 
we  are  fure,we  may  and  can)  Infant-Baptifm  Hands  on  as 
good  and  fure  a  Foundation  in  the  Inftitution  of  Chrift, 
as  that  of  the  Adult.  But  this  is  not  the  proper  Place 
for  profecuting  and  enforcing  this  Argument. 

I  have  the  more  enlarged  on  this  Head,  to  fhew 
-how  unreafonable  a  Thing  it  is,  how  unchriftian  and  un- 
.charitable  in  the  Antip.^dobaptifts^  to  tax  our  Baptifm  of 
Infants  as  a  Nullity,  and  to  let  our  Author  fee  what  little 
Reafon  he  had  for  his  infulting  contemptuous  Language, 
when  (taking  for  granted  the  Subjed  in  Difpute)  he 
teaches  his,  youngProfelyte  to  vilify  &  rejed  his  Baptifm 
in  Infancy,  as  if  it  were  no  divine  Inftitution,  and  com- 
incnds  him  for  his  Renunciation  of  it,  as  having  fioJVar- 
rant  in  the  Word  of  God.  I  have  fhewn  his  Hypthefis 
to  be  built  on  a  manifeft  Error,  viz.  That  a  IVjiftake  in 
a  Circumftance  quite  overthrows  and  difannuls  the  Infti^ 
tution.  He  can't  cliarge  us  with  anyDeviation  from  the 
Inftitution  in  any  of  the  efTentialParts  of  it,in  givingBap- 
tifm  to  the  Infants  of  Believers,  but  only  in  the  Circum- 
itance  of  Time  or  Age  of  the  Party  baptized,  which  (as 
has  been  ftiewed)  is  left  undetermined  in  the  Inftitution. 
If  it  be  faid^  tho'  this  be  not  exprefsly  deternuned  in  the 

Words 


Chap.  II..  ^/  Infant-Baptifmv  2-3 

..Words  of  Inflitution,   yet  confequentially  it  is,  for  the 
Apoftles  were  to  teach  thofe  whom  they  were  to  baptize, 
and  none  but  Perfons  of  adult  Age  are  capable  of  being 
taught.     I  anfwer,  Admitting  theWordT'^^^:^,  in  the  Ori- 
ginal to  fignify,  make  DifcipleSy  as  is  confefs'd  by  ourAu- 
thor.Pag.8o,  All  that  can  be  proved  hencejbyConfequence 
Perfons  mull  be  lirfl  madeDifciples,in  order  to  their  being 
baptized  ;  and  fo  we  prove  by  Confequence  that  Infants 
are  capable  of  this  Qualification,  being  made  Difciples 
together  with  their  believing  Parents,  and  bro't  into  the 
-School  of  Chrift  in  order  to  their  being  taught  his  Doc- 
trine ;  as  will  be  feen  in  the  Sequel.     But  fuppofing  we 
are  in  the  Wrong,  as  our  Adverfaries  pretend,  in  baptiz^ 
ing  Infants,   the  utmofl  they  can  charge  upon  us,   is  a 
JVlifapplication  of  the  Ordinance  to  a  S.ubjedl  (tho'  capa- 
ble of  receiving  it,  yet)  of  an  unfit  Age.     A  Mifiake  ij^ 
fuch  a  Circumilance^  were  it  real,  can  by; no  Means  be 
tho't  to  render  the  Ordinance  null  and  void,  or  infer  a 
Neceflity  of  being  baptized  again.     If  fuch   a  Principle 
as  this  were  admitted  and  purfued  in  its  genuine  Conle- 
quences,  what  Confufion  would  it   introduca  into   the 
Churches  ?  What  endlefs  Doubts  and  perplexingUncer- 
tainties  would  it  involve  theMinds  of  Chriftians  in  ?  Who 
could  be  fure,that  they  ever  receiv'd  one  divine  Ordinance 
b/  a  valid  Adminiftration  ?  For  who  v/ould  afTure  them, 
there  was  no  Miilake  in  fome  Circumftance  or  other  of 
,.the  Adminiftration  ?  W^herefore,  rejeding  thisPrinciple, 
:as  a  plain  Abfurdity,  we  may  fairly  conclude,  that  even 
on  Suppofition,; there  might  be  a  Miilake  in  giving,  or 
receiving  Baptifm  in  an  Age  too  early,  yet  fuch  Baptifm 
once   confer'd   (in  Regard,  at   lead,  of  the  Subflapce 
of  the  Inftitution)  is   to   be  efteemed  good  and  valid  , 
and  that   the  Repetition  of  it  is  unlawful,  having  no 
Warrant  or  Foundation  in   the  Word  of  God  :    And 
that  Baptifm  repeated  at  adult  Age,  after  one  has  receiv- 
ed it  in  Infancy,  is  fo  far  from  being  the  true  Baptifm  of 
Chrift,  as  our  Author  pretends,  that  it  is  to  be  charged 

C  4  with 


24  ^  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.  II, 

with  the  Guilt  and  Blame  of  Will-Worfhip^ht\v\g  deftitutc 
of  all  divine  Warrant. 

When,  there! ore,  any  Perfon  at  adult  Age  begins  to 
have  Scruples  in  his  Mind  about  his  Baptifm  in  Infancy, 
he  ought,  indeed,  to  ufe  all  properMeans  to  get  his  Scru- 
ples removed,  and  his  Mind  well  informed  and  fatisfied  ; 
and  nor  immediately  to  take  upon  him  another  Baptifm, 
which  he  cannot  do,  without  a  criminal  Rafhnefs  in  re- 
nouncing the  Baptifm  folemnly  confer'd  upon  him  in  his 
infant  Age,  whereby  he  was  dedicated  to  God  in  the  fa- 
cred  Affembly,  and  entred  a  Member  of  the  vifibleChurch 
of  Chrift  •,  ai.d  chat  not  only  a  Baptifm  inName,  but  the 
true  Baptifm  which  Chrift  has  inftituted.  Nor  will  his 
Suppofition,  that  there  might  be  an  Error,  or  Dcfcd  in 
the  Circumllance  of  Time,  in  h's  being  bro*t  to  Baptifm 
too  early  before  the  Age  ot  Confent  (were  it  well  ground- 
ed) warrant  his  fo  doing.  But  the  great  Concern  that 
now  lies  before  fuch  a  Perfon,  for  the  fettling  of  hisCon- 
fcience,  (whilft  under  fuch  Scruples)  is  to  redify  that 
fu|  pofed  Error,  and  to  fupply  that  imagin'd  Yidtd:^  by 
doing  that  now,  which  he  conceives  fhould  be  dt)ne  before 
Baptifm,  and  which  by  the  Grace  of  God  he  has  now  the 
Opportunity  of  doing,  that  is,  to  yield  a  prefent  hearty 
Confent  to  theCovenant  of  theGof[,el ;  and  ferioufly  and 
deliberately  to  dedicate  himfelf  to  God  according  to  the 
Tenor  of  it,  in  the  Exercifc  of  an  i.nteigned  Faith  in  our 
Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  &  Repentance  towards  God  ;  and  fo 
to  make  that  his  own  Choice,  and  his  own  A61  &  Deed 
(by  a  ptrfonal  and  publickProfefllon)  which  was  done  for 
him  by  his  pious  Parents  or  Guardians  in  his  infant  Age, 
(which  is  indeed  the  Duty  of  all  baptized  in  Infancy^ 
when  grown  to  Years  ot  Difcretion,  to  which  they  arc 
obliged. in  Obedience  to  thelnftitution  of  Chrift,  Matth. 
28.  20.)  And  to  improve  his  Baptifm,  and  purfue  the 
proper  Ends  of  it,  in  the  mortitication  of  Sm,  and  a  ftridl 
Objbrvance  ot  the  Commands  of  the  Gofpel,  that  he  may 
be  iurnifli'd  M'irh  the  Anfwer  of  a  good  Ccnfcience  towards 
€cd.  And  if  he  might  be  perl  waded  to  uke  this  Courfe, 

he 


Chap.  II.  cf  Infant- Baptlfm.  25 

he  would  certainly  find  it  the  mofl  effeflual  Method  to 
fettle  his  Mind  in  aPerfwafion  of  the  Validity  and  faving 
Efficacy  of  his  Baptifm.  i  Pet.  3.  2T.  Baptifin  doth  now 
fave  us,  not  the  putting  away  of  the  Filth  of  the  Flejlj^  hut 
the  Anfwer  of  a  good  Confcience  towards  God.  T^his  is  the 
great  Concern  ot  the  baptized,  and  'tis  by  Means  of  this 
principally,  that  Baptifm  (at  whatever  Age  of  a  Man's 
Life  it  be  received)  becomes  effectual  to  his  Salvation. 
But  if  inftead  of  this  moftfafe  and  fureMethGd,he  fuffers 
hisScruples  to  pufh  him  on  to  repeat  hisBaptifm,  (^where- 
by he  virtually  renounces  his  Chridian  Baptifm  once  re- 
ceiv'd)  he  ought  to  be  aware  of  the  Temptation  and  Share 
of  Satan  herein,  defigning  to  unfettle  him  in  hs  religious 
Concerns,  or  fecretly  perfwading  him  that  by  fubmitting 
to  Baptifm  in  the  Mode  of  the  Antip^^dobaptifts,  under 
the  Notion  of  an  Ordinance  more  contormable  to  divine 
Inftitution,  he  may  be  faved  from  his  Sins,  and  get  io 
Heaven  at  an  eafier  Rate,  than  by  the  painful  Exercifeof 
Mortification,  Self-denial,  and  ftrid  Watchfuinefs  in  the 
Duties  of  the  Christian  Lite  j  which  is  certainly  a  dange- 
rous Pelufion. 

Let  me  here  put  the  Cafe,  (which  I  fear,  is  not  un- 
common in  theChriflian  World,)  a  Man  takes  upon  him 
the  Chriilian  ProfefTion,  and  receives  Baptifm,  wich  no 
other  than  carnal  Views,  aiming  at  fome  worldly  Advan- 
tage or  Credit,  without  any  inward  Senfe  of  the  Impor- 
tance of  that  Ordinance,  or  any  Regard  to  the  Duties  of 
Privileges  of  Chriftianity.  I'll  fuppofe  this  Man  after- 
wards to  be  touch'dwith  a  Senfe  of  his  great  and  heinous 
Sins,  and  among  the  ^fl,  of  his  wretched  Prevarication 
in  receiving  Chriilian  Baptifm.  Now  the  Queflion  is. 
Whether  fuch  a  Man  under  his  Convidlions  is  to  be  di- 
reded  to  be  baptized  over  again  ?  This,  1  believe,  will 
not  be  afTerted  by  the  Antip^edohapifls  in  general :  No, 
he  is  baptized  upon  the  Principle  of  adult  Baptifm,  and  fo 
receives  the  true  Raptifm  which  the  PFord  of  God  warrants 
and  dire^s  to.  Yet  this  Man,  in  the  Cafe  fuppofed,  is 
certainly  more  criminally  defective  in  his  Qualificatioa 

for 


26  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Ch  a p,  IL 

for  Baptifm,  than  an  Infant  can  be  pretended  to  be ;  he 
is  under  a  moral  Incapacity,  highly  difpleafing  to  God  ; 
which  cannot  be  faid  of  an  Intant,  who  (if  he  hath  not 
Faithj  befure  is  not  an  unbelieving  Hypocrite  or  DifTem- 
bler.     But  as  Simon  Magus  (who  was  fuch  another  graccr 
lefs  Wretch,  as  1  have  here  fuppofed,  and  had  been  bap- 
tized by  Philip)  when  he  had  made  a  Difcovery  of  his 
vile  Hypocrify,  was  diredled  by  the  Apoftle  Peter ^  not  to 
be  baptized  anew, but  to  repent^  (^  pray,  &c.  Ait.. 8  22; 
So  that  the  proper  Advice  or  DirecStion  to  be  given  the 
Man  in  the  Cafe  mention'd,  is  to  repent  of  his  Wicked- 
nefs  and  change  his  Life,  and  to  pray  to  God  to  pardon 
his  pall  Sins,  and  by  his  Grace  to  ftudy  with  greaterCarc 
to  anfwer  the  Defign  of  his  Baptifm  once  receiv'd,  and  to 
live  up  to  the  Bonds  of  it  •,  and  fo  to  corred  as  much  as 
in  him  lies, what  was  amifs  in  his  firft  receiving  it,  &  not 
to  receive   it   a  fccond  Time.     I  have  put  the  Cafe,  to 
fhew,  that  even  tho'  it  be  fuppofed  an  Error  to  admini- 
fler  Baptifm  toPerfons  in  their  infantAge,  (which  I  deny) 
yet  it  is  fuch  an  Error,   as  is  capable,  of  being  rectified 
in  the  Way  and  Manner  before  declared,  without  the  Re- 
petition of  the  Ordinance,  which  is  unwarrantable,   (all 
the  Eficntial  Requifites  of  it  having  been  duly  obferv'd 
before)  even  as  fand  one  would  think,  much  more  than) 
what  is  more  criminally  amifs,  in  a  Man's  receivingBap- 
tifm,  not  being  duly  qualified,  as  it  is/requifite  Per-fons  of 
adukAge  l>.ou]d  be,  may  be  redified  by  his  afterCondud^ 
The  main  Thing  in  Baptifm  is  the  folemn  Dedication 
of  the  Perfon  baptized  to  God  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghoft,  and  Infants  in  their  Baptifm  come  under  this  facred 
Dedication.  Therefore  the  Miniiler  in  the  Dialogui ]w^\y 
urges  thisConlideration  on  the  Confcience  of  his  Parifldio- 
tier, to  aggravate  the  Blame  and  Guilt  he  would  incur  by 
renouncing   his  Baptifm  in  infancy,  that  in  fo  doing  he 
virtually  renounces  his  folemn  Dedication  to  God  in  that 
Ordinance"-,  which,  furely,  no  ferious  Perfon  will  reckon 
a  trifling  Matter  :  Yet  even  here  our  Author  carries  on 
theVein  of  infuking,  ^  den:iands  "  By  whom  is  the  Per- 

''  ion 


Chap.  II.  •  of  Infant-Baptifm.  27 

*'  Ton  in  his  Infancy  dedicated  to.  God,  when  Baptifm  is 
"  laid  to  be  adminiller'd  to  him  ?  Not  by  himfelf,  for  he 
"  is  Ignorant  of  the  wholeTranfadlion."  This  is  granted, 
but  then  he  adds,  "  It  mud  be  either  by  the  Minifter  or 
*'  his  Parents  \  the  Parents  indeed  defu'e  the  Child  may 
*'  be  baptized,  and   the  Minifter  ufes   fuch  a  Form  of 
,  *'  Words,  /  baptize  thee  in  the  Natne  of  the  Father^  of  the 
..//;  .Scn^  and  of  the  HolyGhoft''  And  then  aiks  in  a  difdain- 
fful  Manner,  "WhatDedication  is  here  made  by  the  one 
.,V  or  by  the  other"  ?  and  denies  that  fuch  Dedication  of 
.Children  has  any  more  Warrant  from  the  Word  of  God^ 
than  their  Baptifm.  Pag.  5.  6.  I  hope,  in  Charity  to  the 
generality  of  the  Antipadobaptifis  (many  of  whom  arePer- 
fons  of  a  ferious  and  pious  Temper^  that  this  Pleader  oi 
their  Caufe  has  not  the  Concurrence  of  many  of  thatPer- 
fwafion,  in  this  Determination,  fo  contrary   to  Chriflian 
Piety  and  Charity,  nor  in  the  Shght  he  cads  on  parental 
Dedication  of  Children  toGod.  For  tho'  they  difapprove 
of  the  AppHcation  of  the  Rite  of  Baptifm  to  infants,  yet 
they  have  a  good  Efteem  of  the  pious  Pradice  of  Parents 
in  dedicating  their  Children  to  God  •,  and  I  hope,  in  their 
Way,  they  pradife  accordingly.     Thofe  of  this  Perfv/a- 
fion,  efpeciaily  in  the  lafl  Age,  Bp.  'Patrick  reprefents,  as 
being  of  this  Mind,  in  not  denying,  that  //  is  very  fit  that 
Parents  fhotdd  devote  and  conf cerate  their  Children  to  God. 
The  whoieParagraph  or  that  excellent  Author  deferves  to 
be  tranfcrib'd,  as  what  is  pertinent  to  the  prefent  Purpofe. 
f  "  Children"  (faith  he)  ''  are  in  the  Power  of  their 
"  Parents,  and  they  have  a  Jus  or  Right  unto  them,  fo 
"  as  they  have  to  any  otherThings  that  are  their  proper 
*'  Goods.  They  may  therefore  make  an  Offering  of  them 
"  to  God,  and  dedicate  them  to  his  Ufes,  as  well  asLand 
•'  or  Money  :  And  there  is  no  Queftion  but  God  will  as  ' 
"  well  accept  of  them,  as  of  any  Thing  elfe  that  they 
"  confecrate  to  him,  and  take  them  to  his  Portion  ;  fo 
"  that  it  ihall  be  a  facrilcs-ious  A6t  for  thefe  Infants  here- 


"  after 


t  In  his  J^ua  Cctii talis,  at  the  End  of  Mcu/a  Myjiica.  P.  449, 


28  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  IL 

"  after  to  alienate  themfelves  from  him,  or  to  convert 
"  themfelves  to  the  Ufe  and  Service  of  any  other.  This 
(faith  he^  "  the  Deniers  of  Infant-Baptifm  cannot  deny, 
**  that  it  is  very  fit  that  Par  entsjhould  byfolemn  Prayers  and 
"  Profejjion  devote  and  confe crate  their  Children  to  Gody 
«*  and  make  an  open  Oblation  of  them  before  all  to  his  Ser- 
**  vice,  only  they  would  not  have  it  done  by  wafhing  with 
*^  Water  :  Which  is  as  much  as  to  grant,they  would  have 
*'  theThing  done5but  not  the  Ceremony  or  Rite  ufed,and 
«<  that  they  are  capable  of  the  Thing  fignified  but  not  of 
«  the  Sign,  of  the  Greater  Matter,  but  not  of  the  Lefs  ; 
**  and  as  it  feems  to  me,  they  make  a  Controverfy,  where 
*'  there  need  be  none  -,  for  if  they  are  to  be  devoted  to 
*'  God,  Baptifm  being  the  Way  wherein  we  devote  our 
"  felves  to  him,  and  being  fo  fignificant  of  our  Duty,  it 
*'  is  the  fitteft  Way  wherein  to  devote  our  Children  to 
"  his  Ufe  "  Whether  Dr.  Gill  allows  of  any  fuch  Thing 
as  perfonal  Dedication,  or  that  any  Man  has  Power  or 
Warrant  to  dedicate  himfelf  to  God  in  Covenant,  I  think 
is  juftly  queftionable,by  divers  PafTages  in  his  Book,  par- 
ticularly, Pag.  8.  and  47.  I  fhall  not  be  fo  uncharitable 
to  the  Reader  as  to  fuppofe  him  to  needProof  from  Scrip- 
ture, that  perfonal  Covenanting,  or  perfonal  Dedication 
jto  God,  is  a  Duty  incumbent  on  every  one  to  whom  the 
Covenant  of  Grace  is  publifh'd  and  ofFer'd  ;  thofe  that 
dcTire  it,  I  fhall  refer  to  theTexts  cited  at.the  Foot  of  the 
Page.  *  This,  therefore,  beijig  admitted,  how  contrary  is 
it  to  Reafon  and  Scripture,  to  deny  that  Parents  have  any 
Warrant  from  the  Word  of  God  to  dedicate  their  Chil- 
dren to  him  ?  For, 

I .  If  Parents  have  good  Warrant  from  the  Word  of 
God,  and  from  the  Covenant  of  God,  to  dedicate  them- 
felves to  him,  they  have  fufficient  Warrant  thence  to  de- 
dicate their  Children  to  him  alfo.  For  they  that  give  up 
themfelves  to  God  as  their  fupream  Owner,  Ruler  and 
Benefador,  according  to  the  Tenor  of  his  Covenant,  are 

fuppofed 

•  z.Chron.  30.  8.  ?fal.  5O.  <;.  IfiL  44.  5.  ,^-Chap.  56.  6.  Jer,  50.  5. 
/J<?w.  6.  1 3.  &  Chap.  12.  I.  2  Gr.  8.  5. 


Chap.  II.  ^/  Infant-Baptifm*  29 

fuppofed  to  devote  all  that  they  are  and  have  to  him, 
without  Referve,  all  their  Powers,  Capacities,  Relations, 
Interefts  &  PoflefTions,  to  be  improved  in  fuch  Ways 
as  he  requires  for  his  Service  and  Glory  :  otherwife  their 
Dedication  of  themfelvcs  is  not  entire  and  unreferved  ; 
and  their  Children  being  more  their  own,  than  any  other 
outward  Interefts,  being  Parts  of  themfelves,  as  their 
Goods  are  not,  they  don't  give  up  themfelveSjtheir  whole 
felves  to  God,  unlefs  they  alfo  dedicate  their  Children  to 
him.  They  have  equalWarrant  for  the  one  and  the  other. 

2.  God  claims  a  fpecialPropriety  in  theChildren  of  the 
Church,  by  Virtue  of  his  Covenant  with  them.  He  faith, 
^hey  are  my  Servants,  Lev.  25.42.  My  Children^  Ezek. 
16.  21.  Children  whom  thou  haft  born  unto  me,  Ver.  20, 
And  if  God  hath  a  Propriety  in  theChildren  of  the  faith- 
ful, not  only  as  his  Creatures  in  common  with  others,  but 
as  his  Children  and  Servants,  as  his  Heritage  (  as  they  are 
called.  Pfal.  127.  3.  Lo,  Children  are  the  Heritage  of  the 
Lord,)  have  they  not  a  good  Scripture  Warrant  to  dedi- 
cate them  to  him  ?  Doth  not  the  Scripture  fay.  Render 
unto  God  the  things  that  are  God's  F  Matth.  22.  21. 
I  may  add, 

3.  It  is  warranted  by  the  Example  of  pious  Parents  in 
Scripture.  That  the  People  of  Ifrael  thus  dedicated  their 
Children  toGod,  needs  no  other  Proof  than  the  Circum- 
cifion  of  their  Children,  which  was  the  federal  Rite  of 
Initiation,  and  Dedication  toGod  under  thatDifpenfation. 
On  which  Occafion  a  folemn  Form  of  Words  f  and  cer- 
tain 

f  So  the  learned  Mr.  MeJe  underftands  thofe  Words  of  Zipporah  in 
circumcifmg  her  Child  (Exod.  4  25.  A  bloody  Hujh and  art  thou  to 
Me)  not  as  Ipoken  to  Mofes,  but  (as  the  folemn  Form  then  in  Ufe) 
to  her  Child,  whom  fiie  circumclfed  ;  And  obferves,  that  the  Be^ 
hre-w  Word  Chatham,  rendered  Hvjbandy  properly  fignifes  a  Son-in- 
La^\  and  a  Spou/e  or  Hvjband  only  by  Way  of  Equivalence  or  Co- 
incidence, and  gives  the  Meaning  to  this  Purpofe,  AVxu  thou  arty  or 
he  thou  TnySon  in  La-iVy  being  rfpoujed  to  Circumcifion.  Or  thus,  By  me 
thou  art  made  God's  Son  in  LaiAj  by  the  Blood  of  Circumnfwn.  In  gene^ 
ral,  fignifying  the  initiating  her  Child  into  the  Covenant  by  the 
blppdy  Ri;e  of  Circum^Aon.    ^es  his  Works  f  ol.  Book  2  Pag.  52. 


20  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.  II; 

tain  Prayers  were  ufed,    defigning  this  Initiation'  of  the 
Child  into  the  Covenant  of  Abraham.  \\  And  did  notGod 
ordain,  that  all  the  Firft-born  of  the  Children  of  Ifrael 
fhould  be  fan5fified  to  him  ?  fExod.  13.  2.)     In  Confor- 
mity to  which  Law  the  holy  Child  Jefus  was  prefented 
to  theLord  in  theXemple.  (Luk,2,22^2^.)  Tho'  this  In- 
ftitution  was  founded  on  aReafon  peculiar  to  i\\^lfraelitijh 
Nation,  yet  the  moral  Equity  of  it  extends  to  theChriftian 
Church,  which  is  term'd . /^^  C^^rfi?   of  the  Firft-born, 
(Heb.  12.  23)  Not  to  mention  particular  Examples,  as 
that  of  Hannah  the  pious  Mother  of  Samuel^  confecrating 
him  to  the  fpecial  Service  of  God  in  his  Infancy,  accord- 
ing to  herVow  before,  his  Birth.   ( i  Sam.  i .  1 1 ,2  8 .  j  And 
the  Mother  of  King  Lemuel^  who  is  bro't  in  thus  befpeak- 
ing  her  Son,  Prov.  31.  2.  What.,  my  Son  I  and  what ^  the 
Son  of  my  Womb  !  and  what.,  the  Son  of  my  Vows  !  Being 
the  Son  of  her  Womby  he  was  the  Son  of  her  Vows.,  much 
in  the  fame  Senfe,  we  may  fuppofe,   as  Samuel  might  be 
called  the  Son  of  his  Mother's  Vows  -,  i.  e.  devoted  and 
confccrated  toGod  •,  it  is  hence  evident,  thatParents  have 
a  Right  to  dedicate  their  Children  to  God,  and  his  Ser- 
vice.    Which  may  be  further  argued, 

4.  From  all  thofe  Precepts,  Diredions,  and  Exhorta- 
tion in  Scripture, which  oblige  Parents  to  bring  up  their 
Children  in  the  Knowlege  and  Fear  of  God,  in  the  very 
beginning  of  their  learning  Age,  and  which  prcfuppofe 
and  require  a  previous  Dedication  of  them  to  him.  As 
Deut.  6.  7.  &  Chap.  31.  13.  Pfal.  yS.  5,  6.  Prov.  22.6. 
Eph.  6.  4.  and  many  others.  But  what  Need  I  infill  on 
Scripture  Proof  for  a  Thing,  which  the  very  Law  of  Na- 
ture dilates  and  warrants  ;  for  if  God  had  not  faid  in 
Scripture,  A/l  Souls  are  mine.,  as  the  Soul  of  the  Father y 
fo  alfo  the  Soul  of  the  Son  is  mine  {Ezck.  18.  4.  )  Yet  he 
.  had  fufficiently  taught  us  by  natural  Reafon  to  acknow- 
ledge it.  And  what  elfe  is  the  Dedication  we  are  fpeak- 
ing  of,  but  a  recognizing  God's  fuprcam  abfglute  Right, 

and 

!!  Vid  BttXt.  Sy^ia^o^  Judnig.  Chap.  II, 


Chap.  11/  c/ Infant-Baptifm^  31 

and  Dominion  in  and  over  us,  and  our  Children  ?  What 
Reafon  then  had  our  Author  to  allert  fo  •  confidently, 
"Inhere  is  no  Warrant  from  the  Word  of  God^either  for  fuch 
Baptifm  or  Dedication  ?  Unlefs  he  thinks  that  tho'  the 
Dedication  of  our  Children  to  God  be  lawful  and  warran- 
table, yet  its  being  accompanied  with  the  Rite  of  Baptifm 
(andfo  tranfadled  with  Solemnity)  renders  it  unlawful 
and  unwarrantable.  Whereas,  the  contrary  Way  of  Rea- 
foning  is  much  more  juft  and  proper,  and  more  conclu- 
five,  that  fince  we  have  good  Warrant  from  the  Law  of 
Nature,  and  from  divineRevelation,to  dedicate  ourfelves, 
and  our  Children  to  God,who  is  the  fovereign  ProprijMK^r 
both  of  us,  and  them  ^  and  fince  Baptifm  is  the  only  ini- 
tiating Rite  under  the  Gofpel,  the  inftituted  Symbol  of 
Dedication  to  God  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghoft  : 
We  may  hence  fairly  Conclude,  that  the  baptifmal Dedi- 
cation of  our  Children  to  him  is  agreable  to  his  Mind  and 
W^ill  ;  at  leaft,  the  prefentConfideration,  in  Conjun6lion 
with  what  has  been  before  afTerted  &  proved,  that  Infants 
are  capable  of  receiving  the  Baptifm  which  Chrift  hath 
inftituted,  goes  far  towards  a  Proof  of  the  Divine  Right 
of  Infant  Baptifm. 

The  Parent  offers  up  his  Child  to  God  in  the  fame 
inftituted  Way,in  which  he  requires  him  to  offer  up  him« 
felf  to  him,  (and  by  Confequence  his  Child  as  Part  of 
himfelf)  and  the  Minifter  as  the  lawful  Adminiftrator  of 
the  Ordinance,  ufes  the  inftituted  Form  of  Dedication, 
baptizing  the  Child  in  theName  of  the  Father^  the  Son,  and 
the  Holy  Ghoft  :  Here  is  certainly  a  Dedication  made  of 
the  Child,  in  Fa6l,  both  by  the  one  and  the  other,  the 
Renunciation  whereof  is  unlawful,  for  it  is  in  EfFed: 
a-difowning  God's  Propriety  \  however  the  Right  be  dif» 
puted,  (yea  tho'  it  were  granted  (as  it  is  not)  there  was 
Ibmething  amifs  in  the  Manner  and  Circumfiance  of  the 
A6lion)  yet  the  Child  being  dedicated  inFa6f,  I  am  fure, 
it  has  afterwards,  when  arrived  to  adult  Age,  no  War- 
rant from  theWord  of  God  to  renounce  its  Infant-Dedi- 
cMion,  nor  can  he  do  it,  as  Bp.  Patrick  obftrves, without 

incuring 


32  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        [Chap.  II. 

incurring  the  Guilt  of  a  facrilegious  Alienation  of  himfelf 
from  God.  Our  Author  might  know  that  fundry Things 
are  faid  in  Scripture  to  be  accounted  and  owned  by  God, 
as  facred  to  him  ;  which  were  firft  offered  to  him  in  a 
Manner  much  more  fcandaloufly  erronious,  than  any 
Thing  our  Adverfaries  can  with  any  Pretence  charge  oa 
the  baptifmal  Dedication  of  Infants.  Were  not  the  Cen- 
fers  ot  the  Korahites  efteem'd  holy  by  God,  and  com- 
manded to  be  regarded  as  Things  dedicated,  tho'  they 
offer'd  them  in  a  State  of  Rebellion  and  mutinous  Com- 
petition with  yf^r<3«  for  thePriefthood  ?  Num.  i6. '^jy^^, 
Sppk  unto  Eieazer  the  Son  of  Aaron  the  Priejiy  that  he 
take  up  the  Cenfers — out  of  the  burning.  —  For  they  are 
hallowed  — for  they  offered  them  before  the  Lord,  therefore 
they  are  hallowed.  And  why  were  the  Altars  \n  Samaria^ 
and  among  the  tenTribes,  in  Ahah\  Time,  called  God's 
Altars,  ( when  Elijah  making  Interceffion  againft  Ifrael, 
faith — They  have  thrown  down  thine  Altars,  i  King.  19.10.) 
And  that,  after  God  had  appointed  but  one  Altar  at  Je* 
rufalem,  Thofe  Altar i^  therefore,  feem'd  to  have  beea 
Schifmatical,  yet  being  ereded  to  the  Service  &  Honour 
of  Jehovah  the  God  of  Ifrael,  and  attended  by  the  pious 
Ifraelites  who  could  not  go  up  to  Jerufalem,  God  owns 
them  as  hts  Altars,  and  the  feeming  Irregularity  is  dif- 
pens'd  with  ;  and  the  throwing  them  down  is  charged  011 
the  apoftate  Ifraelites  as  a  very  heinous  Sin.  Let  our  Ad- 
verfaries make  the  Application,and  confider  whether  the 
Dodlrine  they  teach  their  Profelytcs,  that  it  is  no  Sin  to 
renounce  their  folemn  Dedication  toGod  in  Infancy  (fup-^ 
pofing,  as  they  do,  there  is  an  Errour  in  the  Baptifm  of 
Jntants)  be  jullifiable  by  any  Reafons  from  Scripture, 
which  will  acquit  them  from  Guilt  in  the  Sight  of  God. 
Dr.  Gill  could  not  deny,  that  a  Man,  by  efpoufing  the 
Principle  of  adult  Baptifm,  and  adting  up  to  ir,  after  he 
has  been  baptized  in  Infancy,  does  renounce  his  folema 
Dedication  to  God  the.  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghoft  % 
but  he  takes  a  fhorter  Way  of  anfwering  f  tho'  lefs  jufti- 
fiablc}  in  denying^  U^^rc  is  any  f  ouadatijpa  or  Warianc 


Chap.  IL  <?/  Infant-Baptifm.  ^j 

in  the  Word  of  God  for  fuch  Dedication.  His  Caufe,  it 
feems,  required  it  -,  -but  withal,  it  muft  be  own'd  to  be  a 
bad  Caufe,  that  makes  fuch  a  Conclufion  neceiTary  for  its 
Defence.  And  I  am  perfwaded,  there  is  no  Perfon  of  a 
ferious  Thought,  who  well  underflands  and  confiders  the 
moral  Grounds  and  Reafons  of  any  Dedication  to  God, 
whether  perfonal,  or  parental,  and  feriouQy  defires,  and 
purpofes  to  make  a  Dedication  of  himfelf  to  him  in  the 
Covenant  of  the  Gofpel,  but  will  be  fo  far  from  being  of- 
fended at  the  Ad  of  his  Parents  in  his  early  Confecration 
to  God,  that  he  will  ftudy  to  make  it  his  own  by  the  Re- 
newal of  it  in  his  own  perfonalConfent  thereunto,and  will 
rather  blefs  God,  and  be  thankful  to  his  Parents  (what- 
ever his  Thoughts  be  of  Infant- Baptifm)  for  their  pious 
Care  &  Intention  towards  him  therein  •,  and  will  be  very 
cautious  of  doing  any  Thing  to  fruftrate  the  goodDefigti 
and  Purpofe  of  it.  But  if  he  underftands  and  confiders 
withal,  that  the  Confequence  of  embracing  the  Principles 
o^  xh^Antipcedobaptifts^mu^  be  hisDenial  and  renouncing 
of  his  earlyDedication,this  muft  appear  to  him  fuch  an  In- 
ftance  of  Impiecy,  f  as,  to  a  conliderate  Man  (one  would 
think)  were  enough  to  put  a  Stop  to  hisProceedings,  how 
inclinable  foever  he  might  be  to  thofe  Principles  on  other 
Accounts.  For  can  that  Principle  or  Pradice  be  of  God, 
which  requires  Men  to  renounce  their  Dedication  to  him, 
which  appears  to  be  founded  in  theLaw  of  Nature,as  well 
as  holy  Scripture  ?  This  muft  needs  ftick  in  Men's  Con- 
fciences,  as  a  Scruple  not  eafily  to  be  removed  by  fair  and 
impartial  Reafoning.  But  now,  left  this  fhould  be  a  Bar 
toProfelytes,  here  comes  Dr.  G/7/,  and  fooths  their  Con- 
fciences,  celling  them,  ii  they  will  believe  him  on  his  bare 
Word,  that  "  a  Renunciation  of  it  need  not  give  any  Un- 
"  eafinefs  to  any  Perfon  fo  baptized  &  dedicated."  P.  6. 

D  But 

f  It  is  reported  of  Witches,  and  thofe  that  hold  unlawful  Commerce 
with  evil  Spirits,  that  in  Order  to  their  entring  into  Confederacy 
with  them,  they  are  folicitcd  by  thofe  malicious  apoftate  Spirits,  firft 
to  renouuce  their  Baptifm,  even  tho'  receiv'd  in  Infancy  ;  which 
fhews,  that  fuch  a  Renunciation  of  Baptifm,  which  Dr.  Gill  pleads 
for  and  commends,  is  iMau^r  gf    r<^a|  Impiety. 


54-  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.  IL 

But  is  not  this  to  dauh  with  untempered  Mortar^  and  too 
pearly  to  refemble  thefalfe  Prophets  inlfrael,  v^hofeduced 
God'sPeople,  fayrftg.Peace.zvben  there  was  noPcace.  Ezek, 
13.10.    I  leave  it  to  hisfeiious  Confideration. 

This  may  fuffice  to  be  obferv'd  on  the  firftConfequence 
pf  a  Fcrlbn's  crpoufing  the  Principle  of  adult  Baptifm, 
viz.  his  renouncing  hisChriftian  Baptifm  ^Dedication  to 
God  in  Infancy  :  On  which  I  have  the  more  largely  in- 
filled, to  Ihew,  inOppofition  to  Dr.  Gill  fwho  admitting 
the  Confequcnce,  yet  denies  that  fuch  Baptifm  or  Dedi- 
cation has  any  Foundation  in  the  Word  of  God)  that  fup- 
pcfing(but  not  granting)  there  are  fomeErrors  in  the  bap- 
tifniai  Dedication  of  our  Children  to  God,  yet  (allowing 
the  utmoit  that  can,  with  any  Shadow  of  Reafon,  be  ob- 
jected by  our  Adverfaries)  they  can  amount  to  no  more 
than  circumllantial  Errors,  which  do  by  noMeans  deflroy 
or  nuHiiy  the  Ordinance.  And  that  therefore  the  Repe- 
tition of  it  is  a  Thing  utterly  unwarrantable,  and  an  Ar- 
gument of  a  linful  Raflmefs  in  any  adult  Pcrfon,who  has 
rcceiv'd  the  trueBaptifm  of  Chriil  in  Infancy  ;  by  the  Re- 
petition whereof  at  adult  Age,  'tis  acknowledged  he  re- 
nounces his  former  Baptifm,  andDedication  to  the  facred 
Trinity  therein.  Winch  I  wifh  were  well  confidered  by 
thofe  that  lie  under  a  ilrong  Temptation  to  go  over  to 
the  Ptrfwafion  of  the  Jntipccdobaptifts,  * 

2.    I 

♦  It  may  be  proper  here  to  obfervCjthat  the  fzmousMr. Whiflon  having 
Jeft  the  Communion  of  the  Church  of  Englmid,  or  being  forc'dfrom 
it,  bccaufe  jic  could  no  \id\\^tv]o\n\r\.xS\c\x  horrible  Athannftan  Creed 

-  (as  he  terms  it;  law  meet,  among  all  iheDiflbnters  from  the  cftablifh'd 
Church,  to  join  himfelf  to  the  Conimunion  of  the  People  called  Bap- 

,  //V/j,  and  yet  would  never  fubniit  to  be  Re-baptiz'd  in  Order  to  his 
Acimiliion  thereunto.  And  tho'  upon  the  Change  of  his  Perfwafion 
in  c his  Particular,  he  appear'd  as  vehement  and  peremptory,  as  any 
of  the  mo/l  warm  and  zealous  of  that  Se6l,  in  pronouncing  the  Bap- 
tifm of  Infants,  before  ]nftru(ftion,and  performed  by  Sprinkling,  en- 
tiniy^vfong,  cjid irregular  ;  yet  he  acknowledges,  and  declares  them 
to  be  *'/o/<:ir  real  Baptijms.that  they  ought  net  to  be  repeated.'''  And 
o>,ers  fcvcral  Rcalbns  for  it.  At  the  fame  Time, he  acquaints  us, that 
iherc  aic  fomc  that^o  by  the  Name  of  Gmr(il-Baptij?s,y(\\o  are  not 

id 


Chap.  II.  ef  Infant-Baptifm.  35 

2.  I  proceed  to  take  Notice  of  our  Author's  Excep- 
tions againft  the  next  Confequence  of  a  Perfon's  embrac- 
ing Antipasdobaptifm,  who  has  been  baptized  in  Infancy, 
viz.  his  "  vacating  the  Covenant  between  God  &  him, 
*«  by  difowning  that  Relation  to  the  glorious  God  which 
*'  he  was  brought  into  by  Baptifm,"  as  it  is  exprefs'd  in 
the  Dialogue,  P.  4.  This  fcems  necefTarily  implied  in  his 
renouncing  his  baptifmal  Dedication  to  God, which  is  not 
difputed  •,  which  Dedication  is  warranted  by  that  Claufe 
of  the  Covenant,  /  will  he  the  God  of  thy  Seed.  The  Con- 
firmation of  this  Confequence  depends  chiefly  on  the  Re- 
folution  of  the  Queftion,  Whether  the  Infants  of  Chrif- 
tians  are  taken  into  Covenant-Reladon  to  God  with  their 

D  2  Parents 

fo  rigid  in  their  Principles,  but  will  readily  admit  thofe  who  defire  ft, 
to  their  Communion,without  infifting  upon  a  Re-baptization,  parti- 
cularly Dr.FoJiert  to  whofeCommunion,he  tells  us,  he  join'd  himfelf 
with  a  great  Deal  of  Satisfadlion.  See  Memoirs  of  the  Life  of  Mr. 
Whifton,  ^uoritten  by  himfelf  Part  II.  P.  485,  Sec.  What  a  Pity  is  it 
that  this  Spirit  of  Moderation  is  fo  rare  a  Thing  among  the  People 
of  that  Denomination,  as  Mr.  Whifion  has  reprefented  it  to  be  !  If 
all  were  a£led  by  fo  catholick  a  Spirit,  this  Controvcrfy  might  be 
buried;  and  there  would  be  noNeed  of  dividing  Communions  upon 
the  different  Perfwafions  relating  thereto.  In  the  mean  Time,  it  ia 
indeed  furprizing,thatMr./^/^//?&/?(who  is  known,for  aCourfe  of  many 
years,to  have  openly  avouched  it  as  his  Opinion,  that  the  ApofioUcal 
Conjlitutions  are  Part  of  the  facred  Canon  of  the  NenAj-TeJiament,  and 
of  equal  Authority  with  the  Writings  of  the  £<utf/7g-^///yj  themfelves) 
fhou'd  chufe  to  join  himfelf  to  the  Bapiijis,  fmce  there  is,  in  thofe 
Conftitutions,this  exprefsInjun6lion,quoted  by  Mx.Whiflon  [Memoirs 
Part  I,  P.  205.)  BaptHze your  IrfantSy  and  bring  them  up  in  theNurture 
and  Admonition  ofGcd;  for  he  fays,  Suffer  the  little  Children  to  come 
untome,and  forbid  them  not.  Confitut.  Lib.  6.  Cap.  15.  Jt  is  in  vain 
pretended,  that  the  Infants  required  to  be  baptized  are  infruBcd In- 
fants :  for  befides  that  no  Infants,  in  a  proper  Senfe,  are  capable  of 
fuch  Inftru6lions  as  are  requifite  to  qualify  for  adult  Baptifm,  and  be- 
lides  that  the  Inj  unftion  is  indefinite,including  all  Infants ;  It  is,more- 
over,  to  be  obfen^*d,that  the  Rule  here  given  prefcribes  thislnltruc- 
tion  of  Infants  after  their  Baptifm.  Baptize  your  Infants,  and  bring 
them  up,  &c.  And  the  Reafon  alledg'd  in  the  Conftitutions,  is  taken 
from  thofe  Words  of  our  Saviour,  Suffer  little  Children  to  come  unto 
meyhz.  which,  we  learn  from  the  Gofpel  Hiftory,were  Infants  inAge, 
Luk.  18.  15.  So  that  there  feems  fomethin^  unaccQuntabk  in  the 
Condu^  of  this  learned  Cemkmaa. 


36  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.  II., 

Parents  •,  which  I  own,  is  the  main  Ground  of  theirRight  ^ 
to  Baptifm.  The  Affirmative  I  fhall  endeavour  to  prove  * 
and  vindicate,  beyond  all  reafonable  Exception,  in  a  fol- 
lowing C/^^;>/^r.     In  the  mean  Time,  let  me  obferve,that 
if  the  Negative  be  true,  that  is  to  fay,  if  the  Children  of 
Chriftians  be  excluded  from  all  Right,orIntereft  inGod's 
Covenant  with  their  Parents,  how  unhappy  &  comfortlefs 
is  the  Condition  of  ChriftianParents,compared  with  that 
of  confederate  Parents  in  the  Church  of  Ifrael^  who  had 
the  Covenant  feal'd  to  their  Children  in  their  Infancy  ? 
Whereby  God  mark'd  them  out  for   his  Children  and 
Heritage,  and  cngag'd  himfelf  byPromife  to  be  theirGod. 
But  Chriftian  Parents  muft  be  in  a  worfe,  and  more  dif- 
confolate  State,  if  their  Children  be  cut  off  from  this  Pri- 
vilege, and  no  Difference  be  made  in  Regard  of  the  Co- 
venant-Mercies of  God,  between  them,  and  the  Children 
of  Infidels  and  Aliens,  Turks  and  Pagans.     The  Scrip- 
ture reprefents  theComing  ofChrillasdefign'd  to  improve 
and  perfedt  the  former  Difpenfation  the  Jezvs  were  under, 
and  not  to  diminifh  any  of  the  Privileges  of  it.  And  the 
Covenant  under  the  Evangelical  Difpenfation,  as  a  better 
Covenant^  eflabliflfd  upon  better  Promlfes.  Heb.  8.  6.  But 
if  this  be  the  Cafe  of  the  Infants  of  Chriftians,it  is  in  that 
Refpecl  a  worfe  Covenant,  more  curtail'd  &  contraded, 
feeing  it  hath  not  the  fame  Extent  to  Parents  and  their 
Children. 

But  if  the  Affirmative  be  true,  as  fliall  be  fully  proved 
hereatter  (and  as  it  can't  be  denied  without  contradiding 
the  cxprefs  Teftimony  of  Scripture,  that  little  Childrea 
were  once  taken  into  Covenant  with  God  together  with 
their  Parents ;  fo  there  Is  not  the  leaft  Hint  in  Scripture 
fignifying  that  they  ever  were, or  ever  ffiould  bedepriv'd 
ol  thisPrivilege)  how  ungrateful  then  ViXtihtAntip^dobap- 
tifts  !  and  how  injurious  their  Principles,  to  the  Honour 
of  God's  Grace  in  extending  his  Covenant  Favour  to  the 
Infant-Children  of  his  confederate  People  ?  How  injuri- 
ous to  the  Church  of  God, in  robbing  it  ot  a  vifible  Sttd^ 
and  hindring,  as  much  as  lies  in  their  Pov/er,  its  Increafe 

and 


Chap.it.  •    (?/ Infant-Baptifm,-  5>r 

and  Propagation  by  the  natural  Branches  ?  How  uncom- 
fortable to  themfelves,  in  cutting  off  all  Hope  of  che  Co- 
venant-Mercies of  God  from  their  Children,  by  throwino- 
away  the  only  Ground  of  that  Hope,  which  is  their  In- 
tereft  in  the  Covenant  ?  And  how  cruel  to  their  poor 
Children,  in  renouncing  their  vifibleRelation  to  God  and 
Chrift,  his  Church  and  Kingdom,  calling  them  out,  in 
this  Refped,  into  the  v/ide  Wildernefs  of  the  World,  yea, 
and  leaving  them  to  the  Kingdom  of  the  Devil  ?  This  is 
not  exaggerating  the  Matter,  but  the  undifguifcd  Truth 
of  the  Cafe  -,  for  fmce  theDevil  by  God's  PermifTion  has 
the  chief  Rule  and  Influence  over  this  degenerateWorld, 
(as  the  Scriptures  teftify,  Job.  12.31.  Eph,i.  2.&Ch. 
6.  12.  I  Job.  5.  19.)  And  fince  the  Kingdom  of  Chrift, 
and  of  Satan  divide  the  whole  World,  Children  born  in 
this  State  of  Apoflacy  muft  be  bro't  forth  to  the  Devil, 
unlefs  theMercies  of  God's  Covenant  extend  to  them,  or 
(which  is  the  fameThing)  unlefs  they  belong  to  theKing- 
dom  of  the  Mediator.  An  Opinion,  which  a  good  and 
charitable  Soul  can  take  fo  little  Pleafure,  or  Comfort  in, 
I  cannot  but  wonder  fhould  be  the  Matter  of  any  One's 
Choice  •,  efpecially  fince  it  relies  on  no  pofitive  Grounds 
in  the  Word  of  God,  whileft  it  can't  be  denied,  there  arg 
very  plain  Intimations  therein  that  make  for  the  contrary 
Opinion.  And  therefore,  how  ungrateful  are  they,  and 
profane  too,  who  having  by  the  divine  Favour,  upon  the 
Warrant  of  the  Covenant,come  under  a  fealedDedi cation 
to  God  in  their  Infancy,  do  afterwards  when  grown  up 
to  theAge  of  Discretion, not  only  withhold  their  Confent 
to  the  pious  Act  of  their  Parents,  but  deny  &  difown  it, 
and  tear  off  the  Seal  by  renouncing  their  Baptifm,  and  fo 
render  the  whole  Tranfadlion  void,  and  of  noneEfFe6l  as 
to  ihemfelves  ?  and  what  is  this  but  a  vacating  of  the 
Covenant  on  their  Part  ?  For  he  that  tears  off  the  Seal 
from  a  Bond  or  IndenturCjdoth  what  in  him  lies  to  make 
void  the  whole  Inilrumcnt. 

Let  us  now  fee  what  our  Author  has  to  objed  againfl 
this  Confequence.  He  that  had  granted  the  tormer,  viz* 

D  3  A 


^S  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  II. 

A  Man's  renouncing  his  Baptifm  and  Dedication  to  God 
in  Infancy,  could  have  but  Httle  Reafon  to  deny  the  lat- 
ter, viz.  his  renouncing  and  making  void  the  Covenant 
in  which  he  was  dedicated  to  God  :  which  feems  necef- 
farily  to  follow  from  his  former  Conceflion.  Yet  fome- 
thing  he  has  to  fay,  but  fo  indiftindly,  and  confufedly, 
upon  a  peculiar  Scheme  of  Notions  he  has  taken  up  in 
Reference  to  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  that  it  ferves  only 
to  amufe  the  Simple  and  Undifcerning.  A  Diflindlion 
or  two  might  eafily  difcover  the  Fallacy  of  all  his  Rea- 
fonings,  as  will  appear  in  the  Progrcfs  of  thefeRemarks; 
He  denies, 

I .  ThatPerfons  unbaptiz'd  are  vifibly  out  of  Covenant 
with  God,  or  "  as  to  their  external  and  vifible  Relation, 
Strangers  to  theCovenants  ofFromife^^  as  the  Author  of  the 
Dialogue  had  afTerted.  Dial,  Pag.4.  InOppofition  to  this, 

Firfi^  Our  Author  affirms,  *'  that  the  Covenant  of 
*'  Grace  was  made  from  Evcrlafting,  and  all  interefted 
''  in  it  were  in  Covenant  with  God  as  early,  and  fo  pre- 
*'  vious  to  their  Baptifm,  as  to  their  fecret  RelationGod- 
•'  wards."  Pag.6. — If  they  were  in  Covenant  with  God 
fo  early  as  from  Everlafting,  then,  befure,  before  their 
Baptifm,  whether  in  Infancy  or  at  adult  Age. — This  odd 
Conceit  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace  being  made  with  Men 
from  Everlafting,  our  Author  feems  very  fond  of,  by  his 
frequent  Repetition  of  it,  and  frequent  Recourfe  to  it,  to 
evade  the  Force  of  the  Argument  from  the  Covenant,  to 
the  Right  of  Infants  to  Baptifm..  Pag.  io,46.C5?f. Whence 
I  perceive  it  to  be  aPart  of  fome  favourite  Scheme  he  has 
fallen  in  with,  and  if  I  judge  aright,  it  is  entirely  Antino- 
mian.  And  this  Opinion  having  a  clofe  Connexion  with 
other  Antinomian  Errors,  is  of  dangerous  Confequence, 
tending  to  enervate  the  main  Arguments  and  Motives  to 
Faith  and  Obedience  in  the  Word  of  God.  I  fhall  there- 
fore, here,  fpend  a  few  Words  in  Confutation  of  it ;  de- 
figning  more  fully  to  clear  up  the  Dodtrine  of  theCove- 
Jiant,  fo  iar  as  it  relates  to  the  prefent  Controverfy,  from 
the  ConfufiOQ  and  Perplexity  his  Way  of  Reafoning  ha^ 

involved 


Chap.  II.  of  Infant-Baptifm;  ^^ 

involved  it  in,  when  I  come  to  his  IVth  Chapter.  This 
Notion  of  Men's  being  inCovenant  with  God  from  Ever- 
laftin^,  I  fhall  fhew  is  unfcriprural,  irrational,  and  con- 
trary to  Scripture.  And  fince  Dr.  Gill  produces  no  Proof 
of  this  ftrange  AfTertion,  it  is  enough  to  fay, 

I.  It  is  unfcriptural  ;  there  being  no  mention  of  fuch 
a  Covenant  made  wichMen  fromEverlafting,  in  the  Word 
of  God.  The  Covenant  of  Grace  is  in  Scripture  often 
Hi  led  an  everlafting  Covenant  ?  But  this  is  to  be  under- 
ftood  of  its  immutable  Tenor,  and  perpetual  Duration, 
(in  Contradiftindlion  from  the  iirft  Covenant  of  Works, 
which  was  violated,  and  fuperfeded  to  make  Way  for  the 
fccond,  which  everlaftingly  ftands  in  Force)  and  in  Re- 
fped  of  the  blelTed  EffeSs  and  Confequences  of  it,which 
remain  to  everlafting;  and  not  of  its  being  from  Everlaft- 
ing, otherwifc  than  m  the  Council  &  gracious  Intention 
of  God.  We  gather  alfo  from  fundry  PafTages  in  Scrip- 
ture,that  the  Method  of  Man's  Redemption  was  concert- 
ed in  the  Way  of  a  Covenant  betv/een  God  the  Father, 
and  the  Son,  before  the  World  began  :  called  by  Divines 
the  Covenant  of  Redemption  ;  tho  I  find  it  no  where  in 
Scripture  exprefsly  fo  term'd.  Nor  does  it  appear  that 
the  Term  Covenant  is  in  Scripture  ever  applied  to  that 
Tranfadlion,  tho'  theThing  intended  thereby  is  evidently 
contained  in  it.  And  if  this  Covenant  of  Redemption  be 
from  Everlafting,  it  is  becaufe  it  was  made  with  a  Per- 
fon  exiftent  from  Everlafting.  f  Yet  it  is  altogether  im- 

D  4  pertinent 

f  This  Covenant  with  the  Mediator,  called  the  Co'venanf  §f  Redemption^ 
is  commonly  fpoken  of  as  an  eternal  Con) enant^  or  a  Covenant  made 
from  Everlafting  :  but  how  to  conceive  of  a  Covenant  tranfafted  be- 
tween divinePerlons  from  Everlafting  (wherein  the  Father's  propofal 
of  his  Will  and  Decree,  is  reprefented  as  prior  to  the  Confent  of  the 
Son,  who  is  bro't  in  fpeaking,  Lo  !  I  come  to  do  thy  Will,  O  God. 
Heb.  10.  7.  I  fay,  that  to  conceive  of  fuch  aCovenant  as  being  co- 
eternal  with  the  divine  Effence)  tranfcends  all  human  Capacity. 
X)r.  Oiven  exprefTes  it  by  a  «fxy  habitude  of  Wilh  in  the  Father  and 
Son  to-wards  each  other ^  that  is  not  in  themEJfentially.  Vind.  Evangel. 
Chap.  27.  But  I  confefs,  it  is  beyond  me  to  form  a  correfpondent 
Idea  of  fuch  a  new  habitude  of  Will  in  the  Father  and  Son  from 

Eternity 


40  'A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  IL 

pertinent  to  the  prefcnt  Pu'-pofcjas  being  a  Covenant  en- 
tirely diftin6l  from  the  Covenant  of  Grace,which  is  feal- 
ed  in  Baptifm,  of  which  we  are  now  fpeaking  \  concern- 
ing which  there  is  not  a  Tittle  in  Scripture  fignifying  it 
to  be  made  with  any  Man,or  Number  of  Men  fromEter- 
nity.     And  no  wonder,   for 

2.  The  Opinion  itfelf  is  irrational ;  fince  every  proper 
■Covenant  fuppofes  two  Parties,  at  lealt,  concern'd  in  the 
Tranfadion  :'  but  to  imagine  a  Covenant  made,  v/hilc 
one  of  the  Parties,  is  neither  perfonally,  nor  naturally 
exiftentjis  contrary  to  Reafon.  How  then  is  it  pofTible 
that  the  Covenant  of  Grace  could  be  made  with  Men 
from  EverlaftingjUnlefs  they  had  an  Exigence  fromEver- 
lafting  ?  If  Men  maybe  inCovenant  before  theirExiftence, 
never  more  let  the  Adverfaries  of  Infant- Baptifm  objed 
againll  Infants  being  comprehended  in  the  Covenant  (as 
they  are  accuilom'd  to  do)  the  Abfurdity  of  being  in  Co- 
venant 

'  Eternity.  But  I  except  not  againft  the  common  Opinion,  or  Doc- 
trine of  the  Covenant  of  Redemption,  its  being  from  Eternity.  But 
if  it  be  founded  in  Scripture,  it  muft  be  acknowledg'd  among  the 
incomprehenfible  Things  of  God.  Yet  it  is  obfervable,  that  tho'  the 
Scripture  fpeaks  of  it  as  a  Tranfa6lion  before  the  World  began,  or  be- 
fore the  Foundation  of  the  World ;  yet  it  does  not  cxprefly  fay,  it  was 
fromEverlafting.  Obj.  But  was  not  that  which  was  before  theWorld 
began,  from  Everlafting  ?  Anf-w.  Not  by  neceflary  Conlequence; 
fuppofe  the  bcripture  iilent  about  the  Time  of  the  Creation  of  the 
Angels  (and  it  is  fo indeed  as  to  a  particular  &  exprefsDetermination 
concerning  it)  it  were  no  Contradidiion  to  any  Principle  of  Reafon,to 
fuppofe  them  created  long  before  the  World  began.  And  if  we  fup- 
pole  the  Soul  of  \kizMcfftas  to  be  the  firft,and  moil  excellent  of  pro- 
duced Beings,  moft  intimately  and  inconceivably  united  to  God,  by 
whom  the  divine  Power  was  put  forth  in  Creation,  &c.  as  Dr.  Watts 
and  divers  other  late  learned  Divines  have  been  of  Opinion ;  the 
Difficulties  in  the  Dodlrine  of  the  Covenant  of  Redemption,  and 
other  ChfiftianDodlrines  might  be  eafily  folv'd.  But  I  aflert  nothing 
•  here  dogmatically  ;  knowing  that  both  the  Name  and  Nature  of  the 
',  Son  of  God  is  above  our  Comprehenfion, which  forbids  our  too  bold 
Enquiries  &:  Determinations,  fro'v.  30.  4,  Matth.ii.  27.  Ren;. 1^.12. 
Enough  is  revealed  of  the  Son  of  God,  that  is  clear  and  plain,  and 
which  lays  a  fureFoundatior.  of  our  Faith,  Hope,  Love,  Obedience, 
andCommunion  withGod  in  this  World  :  Butyet  he  hath  aNumenvri,' 
ttn,  ivhich  no  Man  kno%^ith  bat  hmfelf  i  WliJch^ther^fore  we  are  hot 
^uriouily  10  pry  into. 


Chap.  IL  of  Infant-Baptifm.  '41 

venant  before  they  are  capable  ofyielding  their  Confent; 
for  it  feems  by  this  Antip^dobaptiji  Writer,  they  may  be 
in  the  Covenant  of  Grace  before  their  Birth^orExiftence. 
Bat  the  Abfurdity  of  Men's  being  in  the  Covenant  of 
Grace  fromEverlafling,  I  might  demonflrate  by  a  meta- 
phyfical  Argument,  from  the  Impoffibihty  of  any  Ads 
pairing  into  EfFe6t  from  Eternity  ;  all  fuch  eternal  A6ls 
being  immanent  in  the  divineEffence.  The  tranfient  A6ls 
of  the  Deity  are  fuch  as  relate  to,  and  terminate  upon  the 
Creature,  and  have  their  proper  Effe6ts  which  mufl:  be- 
gin in  Time  \  for  a  beginning  of  Exiilence  is  neceffarily 
implied  in  every  EffeSi.  But  God's  bringing  Men  into 
the  Covenant  of  Grace  is,  furely,  fuch  a  tranfient  Acl,  as 
produces  a  real  Effed  in  the  Change  of  their  State <and 
Relation.  And  therefore  it  is  impoirible,it  fhould  be  from 
Everlafting,  without  all  Beginning.  The  mofl  that  can 
be  faid  confiftently  with  Reafon,  is  that  God  purpofcd  in 
his  eternal  Counfel  and  Decree  to  bring  Men  inta  a  Co- 
venant of  Grace  in  Time.  But  to  make  this  Purpofe  or 
Decree  of  God,  the  fame  Thing  with  his  Covenant  with 
them,  is  fjch  a  Confufion,  andAbufe  of  Language,  as  no 
Perfon  who  pretends  to  theCharaderof  aManof  Senfeand 
Learning  ought  to  be  guilty  of.     But  I  add  further, 

3.  That  this  Notion  is  not  only  unfcriptural  and  irra- 
tional, but  contrary  to  Scripture  %  and  may  be  plainly 
confuted  by  Arguments  from  Scripture.     For 

I .  The  Covenant  of  Grace  is  called  a  new  Covenant^ 
zxidi  fecond  Covenant^  Heb.  8.  7,  8.  which  fuppofes  a  for- 
mer Covenant.  And  fo,  according  to  this  Opinion,  there 
mull  be  a  Covenant  prior  to  that  which  is  from  Everlaft- 
ing. If  it  be  faid,  it  is  called  a  new^  ov  fecond  Covenant 
in  Reference  to,  and  in  Way  of  Diftindion  from  the  old 
legal  Adminiftration  of  the  Covenant,  and  fo  it  intends 
only  a  new  Difpenfuion  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  which 
fubfiftcd  before  ;  Be  it  fo,  yet  it  plainly  prefuppofes  a 
formerLaw  or  Covenant,  by  theViolation  whereof  Man- 
kind are  fallen  under  a  iuft  Condemnation  •,  without 
which  Suppofition,  a  Covenant  of  Mercy  could  have  had 

no 


42  A  T^e fence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  II. 

no  Place  among  Men.  For  it  appears  evident  from 
the  Nature  and  Conftitution  of  it,  to  be  a  remedial 
Covenant,defign'd  to  relieve  finful  Men  againft  the  Curfe 
and  Condemnation  of  the  firft  broken  Covenant  upon 
merciful  and  gracious  Terms.  And  as  this  Law,  or  Co- 
venant, had  its  Beginning  inTime,aRd  can't  be  pretend- 
ed to  be  from  Eternity  -,  fo  neceflarily  mud  the  Cove- 
nant of  Grace  which  is  fuccedaneous  to  it,  have  its  Be- 
ginning in  Time  alfo. 

2.  God  often  fpeaks  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  or  his 
making  a  Covenant  with  his  People,  as  a  future  Thing, 
being  Matter  of  Promife.  Ifai.  ^^.  3.  Jer.  31.  31,  33. 
Ezek.  34.25.  I  will  make  with  them  a  Covenant  of  Peace^ 
&c.  Why  does  he  fay,  he  will  do  it,  if  it  was  done  al- 
ready, and  fo  early  as  from  Everlailing  ?  Yea,  the  very 
PafTage  that  Dr.  Gill  allcdges  to  prove  it  is  an  Adl  of 
the  fovereign  Grace  of  God  toputMen  into  hisCovenant, 
Pag. 8. might  ferve  to  confute  him  :  which  isEzek.20.37. 
/  will  caufe  you  to  pafs  under  the  Rod,  and  will  bring  you 
into  the  Bond  of  the  Covenant,  Were  Men  bro'c  under 
the  Bond  of  God's  Covenant  from  Eternity  ?  Why  then 
does  he  fpeak  of  it  as  a  future  Thing,  and  not  as  that 
which  is  paft  and  done  ?  Yea,he  fpeaks  of  fomething  to 
be  done  before  they  were  put  into  Covenant,  they  were 
to  pafs  under  the  Rod :  and  whatever  is  meant  by  that 
Expreffion  of  ^^;?g-  under  the Rod,pYcv\ous  to  their  being 
brought  into  the  Bond  of  the  Covenant,  can  any  Man  con- 
ceive of  fuch  a  Thing  done  before  that  which  is  from 
Everlafting  r  He  mull  have  a  flrange  Way  of  conceiv* 
ing  Things. 

3.  Thofe  whom  God  admits  into  the  Covenant  of 
Grace,  have  an  Intereft  in  the  Benefits  of  that  Covenant 
(Pardon  of  Sin,  the  Gift  of  the  Spirit,  Reconciliation,  A- 
doption,  &c.)  For  it  is  a  Sort  of  Contradidion,  to  fay, 
that  any  one  is  admitted  into  the  Covenant,  and  yet  de- 
barred from  an  Intereft  in  the  Privileges  ot  theCovenant ; 
but  it  is  contrary  to  Scripture  to  fay,  that  any,  even  the 
Ele6l  themfelves  have  an  Intereft  in  thefe  Benefits  and 
Privileges  before  Faith  &  Converfion.  4. 


Chap.  II.  ef  Infant-Baptifm.  45 

•4.  This  Opinion  vacates  the  Efficacy  and  Influence  of 
the  Word  and  Spirit  of  God  for  theConverfion  and  Sal- 
vation of  Sinners  :  for  what  is  the  Converfion  of  Sinners, 
but  the  cfFecftual  calling  them  into  Covenant  with  God 
thro'  Jefus  Chriil  ?  And  does  not  the  Miniflry  of  the 
Word,  and  the  Influences  of  the  Spirit  for  this  Purpofe, 
prefuppofe  them  as  yet  out  of  Covenant  withGod,  at  leaft 
inRcfped  of  its  fpiritualEfiicacy  ?  But  if  they  be  already, 
and  from  Everlafting,in  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  the  Mi- 
niflry of  the  Word,  and  the  Operation  of  the  Spirit,  for 
this  End,  is  render'd  needlefs  and  fuperfluous. 

5.  The  unconverted  State,  even  of  theEled ,  theScrip- 
ture  declares  to  be  a  State  of  Wrath,of  Alienation  from, 
and  Enmity  to  God.  Eph.  2.  3.  JVe  (the  Eled)  were  by 
Nature  the  Children  of  Wrath.  Col.  1.21.  Tou  who  were 
fometime  alienated^  and.  Enemies  in  your  Minds  hy  wicked 
Works  \  yet  now  hath  he  reconciled.  But  how  is  this  Def- 
cription  of  their  former  unconvertedState,  confiftent  with 
their  being  in  Covenant  with  God  ?  as  our  Author  muft 
fuppofe  them  to  be.  Can  a  Man  be  in  the  Covenant  of 
Grace,  and  not  in  a  State  ot  Grace,  and  Reconciliation, 
at  the  fame  Time,  either  really,  or  viflbly  at  leaft  \  but 
in  a  State  mofl  oppofitc,  a  State  of  Wrath,  of  Diflance 
and  Alienation  from  God  ? 

6.  The  Scripture  in  plain  Terms  declares,  that  there 
IS  a  Time,  when  the  Ele6l  themfelves  are  out  of  Cove- 
nant, or  Strangers  from  the  Covenant,  even  during  the 
whole  Time  of  their  Unregeneracy.  Thus  the  Apoflle 
writing  to  xhtEpheJian  Believers,  who  were  chofen  inChriJi 
(he  tells  them,  Eph.  1.4.)  before  the  Foundation  of  the 
World ;  Yet  goes  on  to  declare  to  the  fame  Perfons,C/&^^. 
2.  12.  (fpeaking  of  their  former  heathenifh,  unconverted 
State)  that  at  that  'Time  ye  were  without  Chrijt^  Aliens 
from  the  common  Wealth  <?/Ifrael,  Strangers  from  the  Co- 
venants ofPromife.  The  veryPhrafe  ufed  in  theDialogue, 
of  Perfons  unbaptiz'd,  as  to  their  vifible  State ;  which  is 
true  of  allPerfons  unconverted, as  to  their  real  State.  And 
to  the  famePurpofe  he  adds  in  the  followingWords.  >^.  1 5. 

But 


;44  -^  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.  II. 

But  now^  in  Chrift  Jefus^  ye  who  fometimes  were  afar  off^ 
(not  in  Refped  of  local  Diftance,  but  of  their  fpiritual 
State  ;  which  in  ScriptureLanguage,is  as  much  as  to  fay, 
ye  who  were  fometimes  out  of  Covenant)  are  made  nigh  by  the 
Blood  of  Chrift,  I  e.  are  bro't  into  a  Covenant  of  Grace 
andReconciliation  by  theBlood  of  Chrift.  Now,  if  it  may 
be  faid  of  thofe  who  are  in  Covenant  with  God,that  they 
were  fometime  afar  off,   or  out   of  Covenant,  without 
Chriil,  Aliens,  and  Foreigners,  Strangers  from  the  Cove- 
nant, all  which  is  faid  of  the  Ephefian  Believers  in  this 
Chapter,  then  it  is  impoflible,  that  they  Ihould  be  in  the 
Covenant  froniEverlafting  -,  for  what  is  fromEverl ailing 
is  immutable,  and  can  never  be  otherwife  than  it  ever 
•was  :  and  if  this  ftrange  Pofition  could  be  made  evident, 
that  all  who  are  inter  eft  ed  in  the  Covenant^  were  in  it  from 
Everlafting^our  Author's  Inference  were  good,that  "  thofe 
"  that  are  once  in  Covenant,  can  never  be  put  out  of  it." 
Pag.  9.  But  on  the  other  Hand,  it  is  as  certain,that  thofe 
of  whom  it  is  faid,  that  they  were  fometime  out  of  Cove- 
nant, or  Strangers  from  the  Covenant  of  Promife,  were 
not,  could  not  be  in  the  Covenant  from  Everlafting.    So 
that  the  Argument  whereby  he  defign'd  to  oppofe  the 
foremention'd  Affertion  in  the  Dialogue,  is  confuted  by 
this  very  Text,  in  the  Language  and  Senfe  whereof  that 
Affertion  was  delivered.  And  divers  otherTexts  I  might 
produce  which  fpeakto  the  fame  Purpofe.  So  theApoffle 
Peter  writing  to  thofe  Chriftians,  whom  he   falutes  as 
Ele^t  according  to  the  Fore -knowledge  of  God  the  Father 
(i  Pet.  1.2.)  Yet  afterwards  tells  them,  fC^^^.  2,  10.) 
that  in  Times  paffy  they  were  not  >a  People^  but  now  are  the 
People  of  God.  In  the  fame  Senfe  fpeaks  the  Apoftle  Paul^ 
and  in  the  fame  Kind  of  Phrafe,  in  a  Citation  from  the 
Prophet.  Rom.  9.  23,24,  25.  That  he  might  make  known 
the  Riches  of  bis  Glory  on  the  Veffels  of  Mercy, whom  he  had 
afore  prepared  unto  Glory  \  even  us  whom  he  hath  called^ 
not  of  the  Jews  only,   hut  alfo  of  the  Gentiles.  As  he  faith 
alfo  in  Ofee,  /  will  call  them  myPeople,  which  were  not  my 
Peopky  and  her  Beloved^  which  was  not  beloved,-  Here  alfo 

we 


Chap.  II.  of  Infant-Baptlfrn.      .  /^^ 

we  have  the  Stile  of  the  Covenant,  I.  will  call  them  my 
People.     Now,  it  is  undoubted,  that  in  the  fame  Senfe,  ia 
which  they  are  called  God's  People^  it  n^uft  be  underftood, 
thatthey  are  denied  to  hMsPeople  inTimes  pafl;  otherwife 
there  would  be  an  Equivocation  in  the  Words,  which  is 
not  to  be  admitted.  But  it  is  certain,they  are  calledGod*s 
People  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace.    For,  i.  The  Perfons 
of  whom  this  is  fpoken  are  termed  VeJ[els  of  Mercy,  ii.2^. 
Such  among  Jews  and  Gentiles,  on  whom  God  had  pur- 
pofed  from  Eternity  to  glorify  his  rich  Mercy.     2.  Pur- 
fuant  to  this  Purpofe,he  had  called  them  to  his  Grace  in 
the  Gofpel-Covenant.  f.  24.  And  3.  By  this  their  effec- 
tual Calling  he  defign'd  to  prepare  them  for  the  future 
Glory.  ;^.  23.  So  that  noDoubt  can  remain,but  they  were 
bis  People  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  when  called  by  the 
Gofpel  i  and  if  in  the  fame  Senfe  they  were  net  his  People 
all  the  Time  before,  as  the  Apoftle  declares,  how  could 
they  poffibly  be  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace  from  Everlaft- 
ing,  or  indeed  any  Time  before  theirCalling  and  Conver- 
fion  ?    But  the  Abfurdity  of  this  Opinion  may  appear  to 
an  intelligent  Reader  too  open  and  manifeft  to  need  fo 
many  Words  in  Confutation  of  it  -,  which,  therefore,  I 
fhould  have  fpared,had  not  our  Author  laid  fo  muchStrefs 
upon  it,  in  difputing  againfl  the  Covenant  Right  of  In- 
fants to  Baptifm  :  but  how  weakly  will  be  feen  hereafter. 
The  Reafon  of  Dr,  Gill's  Miilake,  I  apprehend  to  be,  his 
not  diftinguifhing  as  he  ought,  between  the  Covenant  of 
Redemption,   or  the  federal  Tranfa6lion  between  zh^  Fa- 
ther &  the  Son  the  defigned  Mediator,  in  which  the  Plan 
of  Man's  Redemption  was  laid  before  the  Foundation  of 
theWorld,and  the  Covenaitt  of  Grace  made  withBelievers, 
or  with  the  Church  and  People  of  God  in  Time  :  and 
becaufe  the  former  was  fromEverlafting,  he  imagines  the 
latter  was  fo  likewife,  or,  he  confounds  the  latter  with  the 
former  ;  whereas  thefe  are  twoCovenants  entirej^  diftin<5t 
from   each   other  •,  as  I  fhall  fully  prove    in  its   proper 
Place.     But  whatever   may  be  in  this  Notion  of  Dr. 
C////,  his  Impertinence  is  vifible  tQ  every  one  in  ailedging 
i.:  iC 


45  ^A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  II. 

it  as  anObjedlion  againft  the  Suppofition  in  theDialogue^ 
that  Pcrfons  unbaptized  are  out  ot  Covenant,  becaufe  of 
theLimitation  with  which  it  was  guarded  in  thefe Words, 
*'  as  to  external  and  vifible  Relation;"  when  this  Notion 
he  has  advanced,by  his  own  Confeflion  regards  only  their 
fecret  RelationGod-wards.Bcmgconkious^therd'or^^to  him- 
felf  of  thelnfufficiencyof  thisReply,he  proceeds  to  anfwer, 

Secondly,  By  ieveral  Interrogatories.  He  aflcs,  Pag.  7. 
«'  Are  not  all  truly  penitent  Perfons,  all  true  Believers  in 
*«  Chrift,  tho'  not  as  yet  baptiz'd,  in  Covenant  withGod 
•*  as  to  their  external,  and  vifibleRelation  to  him,  which 
*'  Faith  makes  manifeft  ?  Were  not  the  threeThoufand 
*'  in  Covenant  with  God  vifiblyjwhen  they  were  pricked 
"  to  the  Heart,  &  repented  of  their  Sins,  and  gladly  re- 
*'  ceived  the  Word  of  the  Goipel — tho'  not  as  yet  bap- 
"  tized  ?"  And  he  goes  on  to  put  the  fame  Quellion 
concerning  the  Eunuch,  Lydia,  &  the  Jailor,  and  the  Be- 
lievers in  Samaria,?indi  at  Coj'inth,who  were  baptiz'd  upon 
a  Profeffion  of  their  Faith  &c  Repentance.  There  is  no 
returning  a  diredl:  Anfwer  to  fuch  ambiguous  Enquiries, 
without  aDiftindion  ;  forWant  of  which, Sophiilry  often 
pafles  with  many  People  for  found  Reafoning,  and  Error 
wears  the  Guile  of  Truth.  The  Diflindion  I  mean  is 
that  of  a  Man's  being  in  Covenant  either  in  Refped  of 
the  fpiritual  Difpenfation  of  the  Grace  of  the  Covenant 
on  God's  Part,or  in  Refpedt  of  the  outward  Adminiftra- 
tion  and  Reception  of  the  Covenant  on  Man's  Part  : 
Which  DiilinCtion  will  be  more  fully  clear'd  up  &  elta- 
blifh'd  in  the  Fourth  Chapter. 

Now,agreeably  to  this  Diftin6tion,  I  anfwer,  i.  That 
in  Regard  of  the  fpiritual  Difpenfation  of  the  Covenant 
of  Grace  on  God's  Part,  it  is  not  to  be  doubted  but  all 
truly  penitent  Perfons,  all  true  Believers  in  Chrift  are  ad- 
mitted into  Covenant  with  God,:  But  I  deny  they  are  in 
Coven anu<7j  to  their  external  ^  vifible  Relation  meerly  on 
the  Account  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace  inwardly  receiv'd, 
which  being  in  itfelf  a  fecret  Thing,  and  while  it  is  fo, 
can  be  no  Guide  to  Minifters  and  Churches  in  admitting  ' 

Perfons  i 


Chap.  II.  .  of  Infant-Baptifm.  47 

Perfons  to  the  Ordinances.  But  this  Relation  muft  be 
fomeWay  made  vifibkjto  the  Satisfadion  of  a  charitable 
Judgment,  before  they  can  be  Foro  Ecclefta  in  Covenant 
with  God,  fo  as  to  have  a  Right  to  theOrdinances  of  the 
Covenant.  He  fays,  "Faith  makes  it  manifeft :"  He  muft 
mean  a  vifible  Manifeltation  of  it.  But  this  alfo  I  deny, 
for  Faith,  as  it  is  an  inward  Reception  of  the  Covenant 
of  Grace,or  an  hearty  aflent  and  confcnt  to  the  conditio- 
nal Propofition  of  Chrift  and  his  faving  Benefits  in  the 
GofpeJ,is  the  veryThing  that  needs  to  be  made  manifeft : 
it  is  a  Secret  in  the  Heart,known  only  to  God,  till  it  be 
manifefted  by  an  outward  Profeflion  according  to  the  di- 
vine Inftitution,  and  by  the  proper  and  genuine  Fruits  of 
it  in  Works  of  Obedience  to  the  Gofpel.  Rom.  10.  10. 
With  the  Heart  Man  helieveth  unto  Right eoufnefs^and  with 
the  Mouth  Confejfion  is  made  unto  Salvation,  Faith  in  the 
Fleart  is  one  Thing,  and  ConfelTion  with  theMouth  ano- 
ther. It  is  the  Latter,  on  which  depends  the  Vifibility  of 
a  Perfon's  Intereft  in  theCovenant,and  Right  to  the  Or- 
dinances. Yea  further,  it  may  be  faid,  that  Faith  is  fo  far 
from  manifefting  a  Covenant-Intereft  to  others  (or  an  In- 
tereft in  the  faving  Grace  of  the  Covenant)  that  many 
Times  it  doth  not  manifeft  it  to  thePerfon  himfelf  believ- 
ing ;  tor  tho'  he  that  believes,  knows  that  he  believes,  yec 
fince  there  are  divers  Kinds  of  Faith  befides  that  which 
is  faving,  he  cannot  certainly  know  that  he  has  a  fpecial 
Intereft  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace,unlefs  he  finds  in  him- 
felf the  diftindive  Evidences  of  a  favingFaith.  But  this, 
it  feems,  is  agreablc  to  his  Jntinomian  Scheme,  thatFaith 
has  no  Intereft,  or  Influence  (  as  a  Means  appointed  by 
God)  in  a  Sinner's  Juftification,  but  is  only  a  Sign,  or 
Manifeftation  of  his  having  an  Intereft  in  the  Covenant 
of  Grace,and  being  in  a  juftifiedState  long  ago,even  from 
Eternity  •,  contrary  to  the  plain  Dodrine  of  Scripture. 

But,  2.  In  Refped  of  the  external  Adminiftration  and 
Reception  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace,it  may  be  truly  faid, 
that  no  Perfon  is  inCovenant  with  God  under  theGofpcl 
before  Baptifm,  or  the  Profeffion  made  in  Baptifra  ;  but 

that 


4S  A  Befence  cf  the  Divine  R'ight         Chap,  il.' 

that  all  unbaptized  Perfons  are,  as  to  their  external  and 
vi/ihle  Rel at  ion  ^Sir^v\gQr%  to  i\\tQowtnd.v\t  :  Therefore  Dr. 
Gill  has  not  diftindly  and  fairly  ftated  the  Cafe,  when 
he  afks  concerning  thofe  who  were  baptized  upon  a  Pro- 
fefllonof  their  Faith,  or  Repentance  ;  Were  they  not  in 
Covenant  previous  to  theirBaptifm  ?  It  may  be  anfwer'd. 
Not  compleatlyjas  to  their  external  vifible  Relation.   For 
tho'  fome  good  Evidence  be  previoufly  necefiary  to  fatisfy 
a  charitable  Judgment,   that  the  Perfons  to  be  baptiz'd 
have  receiv'd  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  or  have  an  Interefl 
in  it,  yet  their  Covenant-State  is  not  compleatly  vifible, 
'till  they  have  taken  upon  them  the  Symbol  of  iheirPro- 
felTion,  and  come  under  the  Seal  of  the  Covenant  in  be- 
ing baptized.     But  the  right  State  of  the  Cafe,according 
to  the  Senfe  of  the  Dialogue^  is,  WhetherPerfons  unbap- 
tiz'd,  or  previous  to  a  baptifmal  Profeflion  &  Dedication 
to  Godjmay  be  faid  to  be,  as  to  their  vifible  State,  in  Co- 
venant with  him  ?  For  Baptifm,in  the  prefentCafe,  is  not 
to  be  confidered  abftradly  from  the  necelTaryPre-requi- 
fites  thereunto,or  from  the  fpiritualPart  of  theOrdinance; 
not  barely  the  waihing  the  Body  with  Water,  but  a  Co- 
venant-Dedication to  God,  Faith  &  Repentance  folemn-^ 
ly  declared  and  ratified  by  thatexternalRite  ;  theThing 
fignified,  and  outward  Sign  confider'd  together,  as  one 
complex  A61  under  theName  of  Baptifm.  And  the  Cafe 
thus  ftated  is  plainly  to  be  refolved  in  the  Negative,  that 
noFerfon,previous  toBaptifm  in  this  comprehenfiveSenfe, 
can  be  faid  to  be,  as  to  his  vifible  Relation,  in  Covenant 
with  God,  but  all  unbaptized  Perfons  are  in  this  Refped 
Strangers  to  the  Covenant.  And  therefore,  our  Author's 
Queries  are  nothing  to  his  Purpofe,as  they  proceed  upon 
a  wrong  Hypothefis^  putting  afunder  what  Gor^  has  join'd 
together.     Hence,  1  need  notdefcend  to  a  more  particu- 
lar Anfwer  to  them  ieveraliy ;  every  common  Reader,  I 
truft,  by  theHelp  of  theDiftin6rion  laid  downsmay  eafily 
difcern  the  Fallacy  in  all  his  Ob  edtions  under  this  Flead. 
Only  as  to  thofe  converted  and  bapcizcd  at  Pentecoft^xhz 
Cafe  was  foniewhat  peculiar  •,  iorbvin^Jcivs  ^  frojylites^ 

it 


Chap.  II.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  '49 

it  is  unqueflionable,  they  were  in  vifible  Covenant  with 
God,  as  Members  of  the  Jewijh  Church,not  only  before 
their  Baptifm,  but  before  their  Converfion  to  the  Faith 
of  Jefus.  For  God  had  not  as  yet  difcovenanted  them, 
but  they  were  treated  with  at  firll,by  the  Preachers  of  the 
Gofpel,  as  a  People  in  Covenant  withGod  :  For  thisRea- 
fon,  they  were  privileged  with  the  firft  Offer  of  Chrift 
and  Golpel-Grace.  See  A^.  3.  25,  26..  But  they  could 
not  be  laid  to  be  vifibly  in  Covenant  under  the  Chriftian 
Form  of  Adminiftration,  before  they  were  baptiz'd  in  the 
Name  of  Jefus  Chrift. 

But  among  all  hisQueries  there  is  one  he  has  forgotten, 

or  defignediy  overlook'd  :  And  that  is  the  Inftance  of 

Simon  Magus^  of  whom  the  facred  Hiftorian  thus  fpeaks. 

Ad.  8.  13.  Simon  himfelf  believed  alfo^  and  when  he  was 

baptized^  he  continued  with  Philip.     Now  let  me  put  the 

Queftion  after  his  Manner,  fince  he  has  omitted  it.  Was 

not  Simon  in  vifibleCovenant  with  God,  when  he  believed 

thePreaching  of  Chrilt  by  i^M/?, previous  to  hisBaptifm  ? 

And  let  him  anfwer  which  Way  he  will,  it  may  ferve  tor 

his  Convidtion.  If  he  fays,  he  was  not  in  Covenant,then 

all  his  otherQuerics  are  infignificant  to  his  Purpole  :  tor 

no  more  is  laid  of  moft  of  the  Inftances  refer'd  to,   than 

what  is  here  exprefly  faid  of  Simon,  that  he  believed  before 

he  was  baptiz'd.  If  he  fays,  that  he  was  inCovenant,then 

he  mufl  admit  fome  fuchDiftinclion  as  I  have  laid  down, 

of  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  in  Refped  either  of  its  being 

fpiritually  difpens'd  &  apphed,  or  inRefpeclof  its  being 

outwardly  adminifler'd,  and  profeifedly  confented  to,and 

received.    And  'tis  evidentjthar  it  is  in  this  latterRefped 

only,  that  Simon  Magus  could  be  faid  to  be  in  Covenant 

upon  his  ProfelTion  fealed  in  Baptifm  •,  for  he  had  no  Part 

or  Lot  in  the  fpiritual  Bleilings  of  the  Covenant,  f.  21. 

And  in  this  InflanceDr.  Gi//may  fee  how  the  Covenant 

once  entredinto,;;2^jy  be  made  void  by  aPerfon'sApoitacy  or 

Renunciation  of  the  federal  Relation  ♦,  for  thisDiftindion 

admitted  may  afford  an  eafy  Solution  to  all  hisObjedions 

under  this  He^d.     And  tho'  there  may  be  *'  fome  Per- 

E  "       "  itns 


50  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  IL 

«  fons  that  have  never  been  baptized,  of  whom  we  have 
"  Reafon  to  beheve,  they  have  an  Intereil  in  the  Cove- 
*'  nant  of  Grace,"  as  he  fuppofes,  Pag.  7.  Yet  what  is 
that  to  their  being  vifibly  in  Covenant  according  to  the 
divine  Ordinance  .?  But  if  they  negle6l  &  refufe  this  Or- 
dinance of  Baptiim,  while  they  have  the  Opportunity  to 
receive  it,this  cannot  but  weaken  our  charitable  Belief  of 
any  Interefl  they  are  fuppofed  to  have  in  theCovenant. 

But  nothing  can  be  more  idle  and  impertinent,  than  to 
object,  as  our  Author  does,  the  Examples  of  the  Old- 
Teilament  Saints  being  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace  before 
the  Inftitution  of  Chriitian  Baptifm.  I  tho't  we  had  been 
fpeaking  of  the  Chriftian  Difpenfation  of  the  Covenant, 
and  not  inquiring  how  the  Old-Teilament  Saints  v/ere 
initiated  into  it.  However,  it  is  not  fo  hard  a  Matter  to 
prove,  as  he  infmuates,  that  Circumciiion,  from  theTime 
of  the  Inftitution  of  it,  was  then^  v;hat  Baptifm  is  ncw^  a 
vifibly  Symbol  of  Initiation  into  Covenant,  and  a  Badge 
of  Diftindion  to  the  Church  of  Ifrael  as  the  only  Cove- 
nant-People of  God.  But  diis  is  not  the  prefentBufinefs. 

2.  Pie  denies,  that  "  a  Man  is  brought  into  Covenant 
"  by  Baptifm,"  and  pronounces  it  afalfe  Allertion.  P.  8. 
But  for  what  Reafon  ?  Becaufe,  faith  he,  "  the  Covenant 
''  of  Grace  is  from  Everlafting,  and  thofe  that  are  put 
"  into  it,  vv^ere  put  into  it  fo  foon,  and  that  byGod  him- 
''  fell."  How  ialfc&  dangerous  this  Opinion  is,  I  have 
fufhcientjy  (hewed  already  from  Scripture.  But  he  has 
forgotten,  that  he  has  already  given  up  this  Reafon,  as 
iafufhcient  to  prove  what  he  aim'd  at  under  the  former 
Plead. — So  here,  if  he  means  to  objedl:  any  Thing  againfl 
that  Suppofition  in  tlie  Dialogue, that  Men  are  bro't  into 
^•//'/Z'/V  Covenant  withGod  in  Baptifm5his  Notion  of  Men's 
being  put  into  the  Covenant  of  dace  from  Everlafting  (were 
it  true)  mufl:  be  fet  afide  as  an  inlignificantProof :  for  by 
his  own  tacit  Confeffion,  it  concludes  nothing  as  to  their 
vifible  Covenant-State,  but  only  determines  ''  their  fe- 
crctRelationGod-ward,"  as  hefpeaks.  But  that  nov/ under 
the  Gofpel  Difpenf^^ioD;  Men  are  enter'd  into  vifibic  Cc- 

venant 


Chap.  II.  of  Infant -Baptifm.  r^\ 

vcnant  no  otherwlfe  than  by  the  initiating  "Rite  of  Bap- 
tifm,  is  fufficiently  manifeft  by  what  has  been  offer'd  un- 
der the  foregoing  Head.  A  previous  Coiifent  to,and  pro- 
feffed  Acceptance  of  the  Covenant  ot  Grace.is  indeed  re- 
quired of  adult  Perfons  as  a  neceffary  Qualification,  but 
Baptifm  is  their  Iblemn  Inveftiture.  What  elfe  is  xhz 
Meaning  of  the  Order  Chrift  gave  his  Apoicles  in '  their 
Commifrion,to^^/?/i2:^  thole  whom  they  fliould  bring  ovec 
to  his  Religion,  in  theName  {o^c  into  the  Name)  of  the  Fa- 
ther^ the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghoft^  but  that  they  Hiould  by 
this  folemnRite  initiate  them  into  hisGofpelCovenant,  by 
a  vifible  Dedication  of  them  to  God  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghcft  ?  He  fays  (^ibid)  "  Parents  cannot  enter  their 
*'  Children  into  Covenant,  norChildren  themfelves,^^." 
But  this  has  been  prov'd  to  be  contrary  toScripture,  which 
plainly  warrants  and  requires  Parents  to  dedicate  them- 
lelves  and  their  Children  to  God  according  to  the  Tenor 
of  his  Covenant.  He  fays,  moregver,  in  Confirmation  of 
the  foregoing  AfTertion,  that  "  it  is  an  Ad  of  God's  fo- 
<c  vereignGrace"  fto  putMen  intoCovenant)  "  who  fays, 
'•  I  will  be  their  Gcd^  and  theyfJoall  be  my  People"  True, 
it  is  an  A61  of  the  fovereign  Grace  of  God,  i.  To  con- 
ftitute  &  propound  a  newCovenant  ofiJercy,rardon,and 
Life,by  theMediation  of  his  SonJefusChrifijUntoiVlen  un- 
done by  the  Violation  of  the  firn;  Covenant.  In  this  Con- 
ftitution,  there  is  admirable  richGrace  difcovcr'd.  2.  To 
draw  and  incline  their  Heart  &:  Will  to  accept  the  Pro- 
pofals,  and  fubmit  to  the  Term.s  of  this  gracious  Confli- 
tution  :  And  fo  to  bring  them^  intoCovenant. — ^Buc  if  he 
means,  that  it  is  an  AtJ  of  the  fovereign  Grace  of  God  ex- 
clufiveof  humanEndeavO'.irs,  or  the  fubordinate  Agency 
of  Man,  v/hich  feem.s  to  be  his  Meaning,  by  his  faying 
"  It  is  God's  folePrerogative,"  and  that  inOppofition  to 
the  Aft  of  Parents  in  entring  themifelves  or  their  Chil- 
dren into  Covenant,  aiid  of  theMinifcry  of  the  Ordinance 
of  Baptifm  •,  it  is  contrary  to  found  Reafon  &  Divinity.- ~ 
Or  if  this  be  not  his  Meaning,  how  weak  &  impertinent 
is  his  Arguing  r  Men  cannot  ent^r  themfdvcs  or  their 
E  2  Children 


52  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  C h  a p .  II. 

Children  intoCovenant,for  it  is  anAft  of  God's  fovereign 
Grace  !  Whereas,  the  contrary  ought  to  be  concluded, 
that  becaufe  it  is  an  Act  of  the  fovereignGrace  of  God  to 
bring  Men  into  Covenant,  who  fays,  I  will  he  their  God 
&c.  therefore  Men  as  fubordinate  Agents  can  and  may 
do  it  by  the  Influence  &  Afliftance  of  divineGrace.  This 
Method  of  Reafoning  is  warranted  and  confirmed  by  that 
of  theApodlc,  Phil.  2 .  12,  13.  JVork  out  your  own  Salva- 
tion^ — for  it  is  God  which  worketh  in  you  both  to  will  and 
to  do  of  his  good  T  lea  fur  e.  It  is  the  fovereign  Grace  of 
God  which  brings  Sinners  into  a  State  of  Salvation,  and 
Grace  works  in  them  for  that  End  :  ye  unlefs  there  be 
the  Concurrence  of  Men's  Endeavours  in  working  out 
their  own  Salvation,  they  never  will  be  faved.  So  it  is  an 
Adl  of  fovereign  Grace,  to  convert  a  Sinner  :  but  unlefs 
Converfion,  in  the  Rcfult  of  all,  be  the  Sinner's  own  A6t 
under  the  Influence  of  divine  Grace,he  will  never  be  con- 
verted. To  deny,  that  Men  as  fubordinate  Agents  can 
or  may  enter  themfelves  into  Covenant,  is  to  deny  the 
Grace  of  God  to  be  effectual  in  its  Operations  :  for  the 
Efficacy  of  it  is  manifefted  in  making  Men  willing,  on 
their  Part,to  yield  an  hearty  Confent  to  the  Tenders  and 
Terms  of  the  Covenant. 

Our  Author  further  obfcrvc^that  "  thePhrafe  oihring- 
"  hig  into  the  Bonds  of  the  Covefmnt^  is  but  once  ufed  in 
*'  Scnpture,and  then  it  is  afcribed  to  God, and  not  to  the 
*'  Creature. — Ezek.  20.  ^y."  A  tacit  Acknowledgment, 
thatMen  are  bro't  underBonds  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace  j 
elfe  to  what  Purpofe  is  this  Text  alledg'd  ^  Yet  there 
fcems  a  manifefllnconriilency  between  thisConceflionjand 
his  otherReafonings  upon  this  Subjedl ,  as  hereafter  may 
appear.  But  if  he  can  find  no  other  Text  in  Scripture  to 
]jrove,that  it  is  an  A6t  of  divine  Grace  to  bring  Men  into 
Covenant,  I  fear  this  will  fail  him  :  for  according  to  the 
Judgment  of  good  Interpreters,  thofe  Words  of  the  Pro- 
phet, /  will  caujc  you  to  pafs  under  the  Rod^and  will  bring 
you  intotbeBond  of  iheCovenaut ^im^oxi  aThreatning,rather 
than  a  Prornifc  s    being  of  like  Tenor  with  the  preceed- 

ing 


Chap.  II.  of  Infant-Baptlfm;  50 

ingVerfes,  which  contain  Comminations  of  dlvineWrath. 
^he  Bond  or  Obligation  of  the  Covenant  is  primarily  to 
Obedience,  and  fecondarily,  inCafe  of  Tranfgrefrion,unto 
Punifhment  :  and  eitherWay  the  Honour  of  God's  rec- 
toral  Authority  is  fecured.  I'he  apoftate  Ifraelites  being 
expeli'd  their  ownLand^were  apt  to  imagine,that  as  they 
feem'd  call  out  of  the  Care  of  the  God  of  Ifrael^  fo  now 
they  were  out  of  the  Reach  of  his  Vengeance,  tho'  they 
fhould  ftill  break  his  Covenant,and  join  in  the  idolatrous 
Cuftoms  of  the  Heathen  Nations, among  whom  they  were 
difpers'd  ♦,  therefore  God  threatens,  that  (as  a  Shepherd 
caules  his  Flock  to  pafs  under  the  Rod,  when  he  would 
take  an  exad Account  of  them,  fo)  he  would  reckon  with 
them  particularly,  and  let  them  know  that  he  was  flill 
their  Ruler,  and  would  proceed  to  execute  the  Bond  of 
his  Covenant, by  infliding  the  Penalty  denounc'd  againft 
the  Violators  of  it.  To  this  Purpofe  Cahin^  who  fpent 
his  laft  Breath  (in  his  Comments  on  Scripture)  on  this 
very  Chapter  in  Ezekiel^  gives  the  Senfe  •,  underflanding 
by  the  Bond  of  the  Covenant^  the  Confiancy  of  God's  Cove- 
nant^on  his  Part^  i.  e.  as  to  the  certain  Execution  of  the 
Promifes  and  Threatnings  of  it,  as  his  People's  Faithful- 
nefs  or  Perfidioufnefs  Ihould  require  ;  by  Virtue  of  which 
Bond,  he  would  at  Length  gather  them  all  to  him,  not  to 
rule  over  them  as  a  Father,  but  to  infli^  a  more  heavy  Pu- 
nijhment  upon  them  for  their  Apoftacy.  *  But  if  any  chufe 
rather  to  underftand  it  as  aPromife  of  the  newCovenant, 
as  fome  Interpreters  carry  it,  I  am  well  content,  and  do 
moft  willingly  grant  (as  that  which  is  apparent  from  the 
whole  Tenor  of  divine  Revelation)  andconilantly  aifert, 
that  it  is  an  Ad:  of  fovereign  free  Grace  in  God  to  take 
any  of  the  apoftate  Race  ot  Men  into  aCovenant  of  Grace 
thro'  a  Mediator.  And  I  hope,Dr.  Gill  will  agree  to  the 
Confequence  in  Proof  of  theCovenant-Intereil  of.the  Seed 
of  theFaithful.  For  if  God's  faying,  I  will  he  theirGod^^z. 
be  a  good  Proof  or  Evidence  of  his  fovereign  Grace  in 
E  3  bringing 

5  Vinculum  fa:dens  nominat  Conftantiam  fui  foederis,  (quantum   adibi- 


^4-  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  IL 

bringingMen  intoCovenant  with  himfcif,  (as  he  confeffes) 
what  keafon  can  be  given,  why  the  Promife  bf  God  to 
the  confederate  ParentjinTerms  ot  the  fame  Import,  Evi- 
dence, and  Force,  /  iviU  be  the  God  of  thy  Seed,  fliould  not 
as  firongly  conclude  for  theReception  oi  the  Infant-Chii- 
dren  of  iiehevers  into  Covenant  ?  'Tis  confefs'd  to  be  an 
Ait  of  the  fovereign  Grace  oi  God, to  extend  thePromife 
of  hisCovenant  to  the  infant  Seed  of  his  confederatePeo- 
ple.  And  if  Dr.  Gill  hath  hisMind  fo  caft,  as  not  to  be 
able  to  conceive  of  any  otherCovenant  of  Grace,but  what 
is  from  Everlafting,  then  it  may  be  faid,  that  God  hath 
fromEveriafting  put  Children  into  theCovenantofGrace  ; 
or  to  fpcal:  more  intelligibly,  God  hath  fromEveriafting 
decreed  &  appointed  to  receive  the  infantChildren  of  his 
People  into  his  Covenant  :  for  he  hath  in  his  Word  de- 
clared his  Acceptance  of  them  intoCovenant-,  and  we  may- 
be fure,  there  is  nothing  in  his  declared  Will,  repugnant 
to  his  eternal  fecret  Will.  And  if  God  hath  taken  them 
in,  how  daring  and  prefumptuous  are  i\\tAnti'pd:dobaptifts 
m  thrufting  them  out  ?  When  God  hath  once  of  old,  in- 
flating the  Method  of  the  Difpenfation  of  his  Grace  to- 
v/ards  his  Church  and  faithful  People,  undeniably  declar- 
ed hisVv^ill  to  receive  their  InfantsintokderalRelationto 
him  with  themfelves,  to  be  a  God  to  the?n  ,  and  has  given 
lis  the  ftrongeit  Intimations  in  hisWord,thathe  defign'd 
his  Covenant  fliould  abide  in  the  fame  invariable  Tenor 
tlirough  all  Generations,  even  under  theGofpel-Admini- 
ftration,  (as  fhall  be  fully  prov'd  hereafter)  how  rafliand 
impious  a  Thing  muft  it  be,  to  deny,  or  flight  thisCove- 
narit- Privilege  ?  But  tho'  the  Promife  thus  extended  to 
the  Infants  of  the  Faithful  be  the  Foundation  of  their  Co- 
venant-Intereft,  yet  their  folcmn  vifible  Initiation  intoCo* 
venant  is  by  Baptifm,  as  it  was  by  Circumcifion  of  old  ; 
which  is.the  Thing  fuppofed  m  i\\Q.  Dialogue  :  againft: 
which,  we  have  feen,  there  is  nothing,  in  the  Reafonings 
of  our  Author  of  any  Force. 

'  3.  He  denies,  than  ''  this  Covenant  can  be  vacatccl,or 
^'  made  null  and  void,  by  renouncing  Infant-Baptifm.'* 

This 


Chap.  II.  cf  Infant-Baptifm.  ^^ 

This  is  the  mainThing  he  flionld  have  proved.  But  v/hat 
are  hisReafons  ?  "  TheCovenant  of  Grace,"  farh  he,  "  is 
"  order'd  in  all  Things,  and  lure  ;  its  PromifesareYea 
"  and  Amen  in  Chriil,  its  Bleflings  are  the  fureMercies 
"  of  David  ;  God  will  not  break  it,  and  Men  cannot 
''  make  it  void  ;  thofe  that  are  once  in  it,  can  never  be 
*'  put  out  of  it,  nor  can  it  be  vacated  by  anyThino-  done 
"  by  them."  All  which  amounts  to  no  more  than  ftron^?- 
AlTertions  of  the  fame  Thing.  And  fuppofing  theTruth 
of  thefe  Allegations,  they  are  all  befide  the  Purpofe.  His 
Fallacy  (if  he  means  in  all  this  to  argue  or  object)  is  ea- 
fily  detected,  by  reflecling  on  what  has  been  already  ob- 
ferv'd.  'Tis  granted,  the  Covenant  of  Grace  cannot  be 
jnade  void, 

I.  In  Refpedl  of  its  divine  Conftitution.  So  it  is  per- 
manent &  immutable,  and  everiaftingly  inForce.  And  in 
this  Refpecl  David  calls  it  an  everlajiing  Covenajit^  being 
by  divine  Wifdom&  Grace  ordered  in  aimings  and  fare, 
^  Sam.  2^.  5. 

v-  2.  In  Regard  of  the  Immutability  of  the  Promife  on 
God's  Part,  to  all  that  are  taken  under  the  fpiritual  Dif- 
penfation  of  it.being  by  an  uniting  Faith  in  theMediator 
entitled  to  the  promifed  Bleding.  In  this  Refpedl,  I  al- 
]ow,there  can  be  noFailure  of  the  Covenant,  but  thePro  - 
mife  is  fure  to  all  the  believino;Seed.— -Butwhat  is  all  this 
to  thofe  that  are  vifibly  in  Covenant  with  God,  or  in  Re- 
fpecl of  external  and  vifihle  Relation  ?  for  of  fuch  only  the 
Dialogue  fpeaks.  Now  of  thefe  there  are  two  Sorts. 
I.  Some  that  befides  a  vifible  Dedication  to  God,  have 
a  real  Participation  of  the  favingGrace  of  the  Covenant, 
the  Spirit  of  Regeneration  &  Sandihcation,  Pardon  and 
Adoption,  &c.  And  it  is  with  Refpecl  to  thefe,  that  J  ad- 
mit theTruth  of  what  has  been  faid  of  the  Indefediblenef^s 
of  the  Covenant  of  Grace.  Tho' even  thele  are  oitea 
guilty  of  grievous  Backflidings  &  Violations  of  the  Arti- 
cles of  theCovenant  on  theirPart ;  and  that  a  tinalBreach  - 
andDilTolution  of  theCovenant  doc3  not  enUie  thereupon, 
1%  owing  meerly  to  .  the  fuperabounding  Grace  of  Goa. 

E  4  -•  There 


'56  A  Defence  of  the  "Divine  R\ght         Chap.  II 

2.  There  are  others  (and  the  greateft  Part  of  thofe  who 
are  called  by  the  Gofpel  into  Covenant  with  God  j  who 
enter  into  this  Relation  only  by  vifible  Profeffion,  or  vi- 
fibleDedication  •,  being  at  prefent  deftitute  of  the  fandli- 
fyingGrace  of  the  Covenant :  who  neverthelefs  are  under 
the  Bonds  of  it,  by  Virtue  of  their  folemn  Dedication  to 
God,  whereby  they  are  obliged  to  perform  theDuties  and 
ConditionSjUpon  whichGod  haspromifed Pardon  &Salva- 
tion.  And  who  can  Doubt,  that  Perfons  of  thisCharadter 
may  be  &  often  are  guilty  of  violating  thofe  facred  Ob- 
ligations, &  vacating  the  Covenant  fas  we  have  obfcrv'd 
in  the  Cafe  of  Simon  Magus)  by  reverting  to  the  Idols  of 
the  World,  and  pradlically  denying  the  trueGod,as  their 
fuprcam  Lord  and  Benefadlor,  or  by  difowning  the  fede- 
ral Relation  they  have  been  brought  into  by  their  baptif- 
mal  Dedication  ?  which  is  the  Cafe  under  Confideration. 
For  thelnfant-Childrenof  theChurch,who  on  thisGround 
of  the  Covenant  are  offer'd  up  toGod  inBaptifm,may  be 
reckon'd  of  thefe  twoSorts  I  have  mention'd.  Some  who 
are  early  fealon'd  with  the  Grace  of  God,  and  religioufly 
difpofed  from  their  Childhood,  and  as  to  thofe  who  die 
in  the  Age  of  Infancy  or  Childhood  before  they  have  done 
any  Thing  to  forfeit  the  promiled  Blefling,  there  is  no 
Room  to  Doubt,  butGod  will  make  good  his  Promife  in 
their  eternal  Salvation.  Others,who  (as  they  grow  up  to  a 
Capacity  of  Difcerning,  of  chufing  the  Good  &  refufing 
the  Evil)  do  negled  and  violate  the  Bonds  of  their  Bap- 
tifm,  and  forfake  the  God  of  their  Fathers  and  their  God 
(for  theCovenant-Intereft  of  Children  is  no  more  than  the 
vifibleProfeffion  of  the  Adult  an  abfolute  Security  againfl 
Apoflacy)  and  ib  may  truly  &  juftly  be  faid  to  make  void 
theQovenant  betweenGod  &  them.  And  this  feems  evi- 
dently theCafe  of  thofe  who  having  been  devoted  toGod 
byBaptifm  in  their  early  Infancy,do  afterwards  when  they 
arrive  to  adultAge,renounce  their  baptifmal  Dedication, 
and  difclaim  all  Intcred  in,  and  Relation  to  the  bleffed 
God,  which  they  had  by  Virtue  of  his  Covenant  &  Pro- 
mife to  their  Parents  to  be  their  God  and  the  God  of  their 

Seed, 


Chap.  II.  of  Infanc-Baptifm.  '57 

to^,  folemnly  ratified  by  theNew-TeftUment  Seal  of  In- 
itiation. And  what  is  this  but  to  vacate  the  Covenant, 
and  render  it  wholly  void,and  of  none  EfFed,as  to  them- 
felves  ?  Which  is  the  Thing  aflerted  in  the  Dialogue. 
And  it  is  a  Confideration  proper  to  be  urg'd  on  theCon- 
fciences  of  thofe  who  are  inconfiderately  rufhing  into  the 
Errors  o'i  Jntipadobaptifm.  There  is  nothing  in  ail  the 
Exceptions  of  Dr.  Gill  that  makes  againll:  thisAflertion. 
All  that  can  be  concluded  from  his  Arguments  is,  that 
the  Covenant  on  God's  Part  cannot  be  vacated,  but  as  to 
all  that  are  the  Subjedls  of  its  internal  fpirituai  Difpenfa- 
tion  (all  regenerateBelievers)  it  is  made  fure  by  the  invio- 
lable Promife  of  God  :  about  which,  I  fuppofe,  he  will 
have  few  or  none  to  contend  with  him.  But  he  feems  ig- 
norant (tho'  fufHcient  Intimations  were  given  in  the  Dia- 
logue^ which  he  himfelf  has  taken  Notice  of)  that  theCo- 
venant  in  the  prefent  Debate  is  to  be  coniider'd  withRe- 
fpedl  to  its  external  Adminiftration,  by  the  Ordinances 
in  the  vifible  Church,  according  to  which  only  we  can 
judge,  of  any  Man's  Right  in  the  Covenanr,or  of  hisFor- 
feiture  of  it.  Had  Dr.  Giil  well  itudied  the  ScriptureDoc- 
trine  of  the  Covenant,  before  he  had  attach'd  himfelf  to 
certain  Schemes,  perhaps  the  Notion,  which  the  Yv^riter 
of  the  Dialogue  had  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  would  not 
have  appear'd  (ojlrange  a  Notion  to  him,  as  heTerms  it, 
and  feems  to  wonder  that  upon  his  Principles  (which, by 
the  Way, he  has  miftaken)  he  could  write  with  any  Sue- 
cefs  againft  the  A'aninians  (as  it  feems  he  had  heard,  that 
he  had)  and  for  my  Part,  I  Ihould  wonder  to  hear  of  any 
Man's  writing  againft  Arminians  with  Succefs  upon  Anti- 
nomian? rwxi^lts  :  'tis  doing  too  muchHonour  to  the  Ar- 
minians^^ giving  toomuchAdvantage  to  them, to  confefs, 
that  they  cannot  be  confuted  but  upon  thefe  Principles. 

But  what  is  there  to  be  found  amifs  or  defedive  in  the 
Principles  of  the  foremention'd  Wri.er,  that  hinders  his 
writing  with  Propriety,  Strength  &  Succefs  againft  the 
Arminians  ?  Becaufe  (I  imagine)  he  don't  hold  with  our 
Author,  i\\'}X  the  Covenant  of  Grace  was  made  oply  with 

the 


'gS  A  Defence  cf  the  Divine  Right  Chap.  II. 

the  Elec5l,&  that  asEleft  fromEverlafting,before  they  had 
a  Being  ;  on  which  Principle  only,  he  fuppofes,  theSta- 
biHty  ot  the  Covenant, the  Perfeverance  of  the  Saints,and 
the  infalhble  Certainty  ot  the  Salvation  of  the  Eledl  can 
be  detended.     But  the  Principle  itfelf,  I  have  fliewed  in 
Part,  and  fhall  do  it  more  fully  hereafter,  is  unfcriptural 
and  abfurd.     God's  Covenant  with  his  People,  which  he 
has  reveal'd  to  us  in  his  Wordjis  not  only  theRule  of  his 
own  A6i:s  and  Difpenfations,which  is  ftridly  &  properly 
nothing  elfe  but  the  eternal  Counfel  of  his  own  Will  ;  but 
the  flatedRule  of  Commerce  between  himfelf  and  his  vi- 
fible  Church,  (hewing  us  what  it  is  he  requires  of  us  in 
order  to  our  pleafing  him,  and  what  Mercies  &  Bleffings 
we  may  expe(51:  from  him  upon  our  Compliance  with  his 
Terms.     And  fo  the  Covenant,in  the  conditional  Propo- 
fition  and  Difpenfation  of  it  to  Men,  is  in  the  Hand  of  a 
Mediator^  a  wife  &  gracious  Rule  of  moral  Government 
over  them  in  a  State  of  Degeneracy,' who  are  hereby  put 
into  a  State  of  Probation,  being  taken  under  theGovern- 
ment  andDifcipline  of  a  Mediator  in  order  to  their  being 
recover'd  unto  Holinefs  6c  Happinefs  j  by  which  Means 
the  Eled  are  infallibly  bro't  Home  to  God,and  ail  others 
left  inexcufabie.     And  what  is  there  in  this  divineEfta- 
rbliHiment  prejudicial  to  the  Sovereignty  and  Efficacy  of 
divine  Grace  in  the  Calling  and  Converfion  of  the  Eied:, 
and  making  their  Salvation  fure  and  infallible,  tho'  the 
gracious  Defign  of  it  may  be  defeated  by  the  Impiety  of 
others, and  theCovenant  made  of  noneEffedl  as  to  them- 
fclves  ?  Can't  we  fuppofethe  blefled  God  to  be  a  free  fo- 
vereign  Benefactor,  without  laying  afide  his   legiflative 
Authority,  and  ccafmg  to  be  a  wife  and  jufh  Governour  ? 
Are  thefe  inconliftent  ?  If  this  were  the  Cafe,  one  would 
think  the  latter  Relation,  of  a  righteousGovernor,  which 
is  natural  and  neceffary,  muPc  take  Place  of  the  former, 
that  of  a  fovereign  Benefaftor,  which  is  more  voluntary 
and  free  ;  but  indeed  there  is  no  Manner  of  Inconiiftency 
between  thefe  two  Relations  in  the  Difpenfation  of  the 
Covenant  oi  Grace.  -Tho'  Faith,  Repentance,  San6lifica- 

tion 


Chap.  IL  cf  Infant-Baptifm.  '59, 

tion,  and  final  Perfeverance  too,  be  the  Eflfe6t  of  God's 
Grace,  no  lefs  than  Pardon  of  Sin,and  everlafting  Salva- 
tion -,  yet  the  Wifdom  of  God  in  the  Adminiflration  of 
the  Covenant  has  fix'd  this  Order  &  Connection  between 
thefe  Benefits,thac  the  former  fhould  oe  theCondition  of 
the  latter,  and  the  latter,  Motives  and  Encouragements 
to  Men's  Compliance  with  thofe  Conditions  :  that  is  to 
fay,  that  Faith  &  Repentance  (which,  tho'  the  Effects  of 
divine  Grace,  are  yet  injoin'd  asMan's  indifpenfableDuty) 
fliould  be  the  Condition  or  Means  of  obcaining  Pardon 
of  Sin  and  Reconciliation  to  God  -,  and  that  final  Perfe^- 
verance  in  Grace  (v/hich  is  alfo  Man's  Duty,as  well  as  the 
Gift  of  Grace)  fnould  be  the  Condition  or  Means  of  ob- 
taining eternal  Salvation  ;  as  is  evident  from  the  whole 
Tenor  of  the  Scripture,  as  w^ell  as  from  the  Reafon  of  the 
Thing.  In  this  Method  of  Difpenfation,  the  Almighty 
keeps  up  his  governing  Authority,  in  the  Injundtion  of 
Man's  Duty,  in  a  full  Confiflence  with  the  Liberty  and 
Pov/er  of  his  Grace.  So  that  there  is  no  Need  of  fetting 
afide  a  conditionaiCovenant,in  Order  to  maintain  the  fo- 
vereignEfficacy  of  God's  Grace  in  Oppofition  toArmiyiian 
Tenets. 

Now  let  the  intelligent  Reader  judge  from  thefe  brief 
Hints, whether  the  conditionalPropofition  of  theCovenant 
in  the  Adminiffration  of  it  to  Men  (which  is  all  that  need 
be  fuppofed  in  the  Dialogue,  to  found  the  Charge  of 
making  void  the  Covenant  on  Man's  Part)  be  fo  very 
friendly  to  Arminian/fm,  that  a  Man  cannot  confidently 
therewith  write  with  anyKope  of  Succefs  againft  the  Er- 
rors of  the  Arminians. 

But  I  have  nov/  finifn'd  what  I  mainly  defigned  upon 
his  fecond  Chapter,  which  was  to  (hew,  that  Men  by  re- 
nouncing their  Baptifm  in  Infancy,  and  embracing  the 
Principles  of  Antipc^dohaptifm^  do  virtually  and  in  Effeft 
renounce  the  trueBaptifm  of  Chriil,  and  their  folemn  De- 
dication to  God  therein.  Whence  it  follov/s,  That  the 
Baptifm  which,  they  receive  at  adult  Age,  under  the  No- 
tion of  it's  being  the  only  true  Baptifm  which  tiie  Word^ 

of 


^o  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.  II. 

ofGodwarrants,is  really  but  anOrdinance  of  Men's  ownln- 
vention,and  not  of  divine  Appointment  •,  forGod  has  no 
where  appointed  a  fecondBaptifm,where  thatOrdinancehas 
been  once  adminiftred  :  and  I  have  alfo  fhewed,  they  are 
juftly  chargeable  with  vacating  the  Covenant,or  of  mak- 
incT  void  the  Covenant-Relation  to  the  blefledGod, which 
by  their  early  Baptifm  they  were  vifibly  entred  into  ♦,  and 
have  fully  fhewed, there  is  nothing  of  any  Force  or  Per- 
tinency in  Dr.  G/7/'s  Exceptions  under  thefe  two  Heads. 

As  to  the  other Confequences  of  denying  the  Validity 
of  Infant-Baptifm,  which  he  has  gather'd  from  the  Dia- 
logue, (mentioned  in  the  beginning  of  this  Chapter)  fince 
they  are  but  of  little  Concernment  to  theSubjedin 
Difpute,  I  fliall  pafs  them  over  with  fome  brief  Remarks. 
Here  then  let  me  fay  in  general ; 

Firft^  It  may  be  gran  ted,  without  any  Prejudice  or  Ad- 
vantage on  either  Side,  that  thefe  feveral  Confequences 
are  not  all  alike  clear.  For  no  Man  is  able  to  determine 
how  far  theMercy  of  God  may  overlook  theCorruptions 
of  Men  in  the  Matters  of  his  Worfhip  &  Ordinances,  fo 
as,  notwithftanding,  to  continue  his  Prefence  with  his 
Church,even  though  we  fuppofe  thofeCorruptions  to  pro- 
ceed to  fuch  aDegree  as  in  human  Conftrudion  to  nullify 
fome  of  theOrdinances  of  Jefus  Chrift  •,  nor  what  Allow- 
ance he  may  be  pleas'd  to  make  forMen's  Ignorance,  In- 
firmities, Miftakes&  Prejudices,  by  Means  whereof  fuch 
Corruptions  may  have  crept  into  the  Church.  Nor  do  I 
think  it  reafonable,  to  admit,  that  the  Corruptions  of  the 
preceedingGenc rations  fliould  put  it  out  of  the  Power  of 
the  prefent  Generation,  \[  better  enlightned,  to  obferve 
any  of  the  Laws,  or  Ordinances  of  Jefus  Chrifl.  Yer, 

Secondly^  ThefeConfcquences  prefs  much  harder  on  the 
Jntip^dobaptifts,  and  by  their  Principles  they  lie  under 
greater  Difadvantages  for  denying  them,  than  the  P^do- 
baptifts.  For  they  make  a  Dcfedt  in  a  Circumftance  to. 
nullify  the  whole  Inflitution  in  theCafe  of  Infant-Baptifm; 
for  if  Baptifm  adminiibed  to  Infants  be  a  Nullity  (as  they 
fay)  tho'  all  the  other  eilcntial  Requifites  of  Baptifm  be 

obfcrv'd. 


Chap.  II.  cf  Infant-Baptifm.  6t 

obferv'd,  then  theNullity  of  Infant-Baptifm  muft  be  ow- 
ing to  a  Failure  in  theAge  of  the  Perfon  baptized,  which 
is  but  circumflantial,as  I  before  proved  ;  and  if  the  want 
of  a  proper  and  fit  Age  in  the  Perfon  to  be  baptiz'd  be 
of  fo  great  Moment,  as  to  nullify  the  whole  Ordinance  fo 
adminiftred,  much  more  muil  the  Want  of  Baptifm  and 
Authority  to  baptize,in  the  Adminiflrator,  do  it  :  for  an 
authorized  Adminiflrator  is  more  efTential  to  the  Ordi- 
nance, than  the  fitnefs  of  the  Age  of  the  Party  to  whom 
it  is  adminiflred.  ForChrifl  has  determined  nothing  of  the 
latter  in  the  Inflitution,  but  he  has  ordained  the  former 
in  the  CommifTion  given  to  his  Apoflles  and  Minifters  to 
teach  and  baptize.  Math.  28.19.  A  CommifTion  given 
to  fome  for  any  fpecial  Service,  or  Miniftry,  is  a  virtual 
Exclufion  or  Prohibition  to  all  others  from  engaging  in 
it.  In  the  civil  State,  lawful  Authority  is  requifite  to  the 
Adminiflration  of  the  Affairs  of  Government,  and  it  is 
agreable  to  the  Will  of  God  that  it  fhould  be  fo  (for  he  is 
the  Author  of  Magiflracy,  and  has  appointed  Order  and 
Subjedion  in  civil  Governments)  and  Ads  of  Office  done 
byPerfons  out  ofOffice,or  thofe  who  have  noCommiflion, 
are  efleemedUfurpations  in  theAgent,  and  null  &  invalid 
in  the  Effed.  And  can  any  Man  perfwade  me  to  believe, 
that  God  is  the  God  of  Order  in  Political  Governments, 
and  not  in  the  Government  of  the  Church  ^.  Ye?,  much 
more  of  the  Church  (in  the  well  ordering  whereof  his 
Glory  is  more  nearly  interefted)  if  we  will  believe  the 
Apoille,  I  Cor.  1 4.  33.  For  God  is  7iot  the  Author  of  Con- 
fujion^  hut  of  Peace^  as  iji  all  the  Churches  of  the  Saints, 
If  then  a  lawful  CommifTion  be  necefTary  to  the  Validity 
of  Baptifm,  how  inconfiftent  is  it  with  the  Principles  of 
the  Antipa:dobaptifis^  to  plead  (as  our  Author  does)  that 
Baptifm  may  in  fome  Cafes  be  good,  and  valid,  that  is 
adminiflred  by  an  unbaptized  Perfon, who  has  no  Com- 
mifTion •,  while  in  no  Cafe  they  will  allow  the  Validity  of 
the  Baptifm  of  Infants  ?  Tho'  in  the  former  Cafe  there  is 
an  efTentialDefecl  in  theAdminillrationof  theOrdinance, 
and  if  there  be  a  Dtf^ft  in  the  latter,  as  they  fuppofe,  ic 

mgft 


61  A  Defence  of  the  'Divine  Right  Chap.  II. 

muft  be  but  in  the  Circumftance  of  Time,  or  Age,  and 
that  undetermined  in  the  Inftitution.  Wherefore  to  have 
been  felf-confiltent  &  impartial,  they  mull  (by  theirPrin- 
ciple,that  a  Defetl  in  theAdminiitration  of  the  Ordinance 
nulhfies  the  whole  Action)  have  at  leafl:  equally  rejeded 
Baptifm  in  both  Cafes  as  unlawful  and  invalid.  'Tis  then 
unreafonablc  StifFnefs  in  denying  the  Validity  of  Infant- 
Eaptifm,  that  has  put  them  on  this  Inconvenience.  For 
fince  it  appears  (and  it  cannot  fairly  be  deny'd  by  our 
Adverfaries)  that  no  other  than  Padobaptifm  obtain'd  in 
the  Univerfal  Church  for  feveral  Ages,  the  Antip.-edobap- 
tifts  therefore,  at  their  firft  Rife,  mud  receive  their  Bap- 
tifm at  the  Hands  of  thofe  whom  they  efteem  unbaptized 
Perfons.  But  if  this  iiril  Baptifm  fo  receiv'd  be  invalid, 
all  the  fubfequent  Baptifms  thence  to  this  Day  muft  be 
rejected  as  invalid  too.  Therefore  (it  feems)  it  muft  be 
afHrmed,  that  in  ibme  Cafes  (of  the  Fitnefs  and  Neceility 
whereof  every  one  will  be  a  Judge)  Baptifm  may  be  good, 
that  is  adminiftred  by  one  who  is  himfelf  unbaptiz'd,and 
unauthoriz'd.  Wherea£,if  they  could  have  mollified  their 
Opinion  of  Infant-Baptifm,and  own'd  it  to  have  been  for 
the  Subftance  valid, tho'  in  fomeThings  defedlive  -,  how- 
ever miftaken  herein,  yet  they  might  have  avoided  this 
Inconvenience  and  Ablurdity. 

Thirdly,  The  Prefence  of  Chrift  is  fo  neceflary  to  his 
Church  on  Earth,  that  the  very  Being  of  it  depends  on 
hisPrefence  with  us  inWay  of  fpiritual  Communion  ;  fo 
that  if  he  has  totally  withdrawn  his  Prefence,  it  will  fol- 
low,that  he  has  no  more  any  Church  in  theWorld  at  this 
Day.  And  fince  there  is  fuch  a  Connexion  fas  the  Scrip- 
ture declares)  between  thePrefence  of  Chrift  with  hisPeo- 
ple,  and  the  due  Adminillration  and  Obfervation  of  his 
Laws  and  Inftitutions  in  his  Church,  as  the  outward  and 
ordinary  Means  of  Communion  with  them,  they  that 
admit  the  Suppofition  that  thefe  have  failed  in  any  Age, 
will  have  a  hard  Tafk  to  prove,  confiftently  therewith, 
that  Chrift  has  made  good  the  Promife  of  his  Prefence 
with  his  Church  and  Minifters  ;  or  that  there  has  been 

a 


Chap.  IL  of  Infant-Baptilm.  6^ 

a  continued  SuccefTion  of  theChurch  of  Chrift  to  thisDay, 
Therefore  let  me  add. 

Fourthly^  This  Suppofition  is  upon  noTerms  to  be  ad- 
mitted,that  any  of  theLaws  or  Inftitutions  of  Chrift  have 
ceafed,  or  been  annull'd'  For  it  is  an  abfolute  Contra- 
didion  to  what  is  fo  plainly  and  fully  aflerted  in  Scrip- 
ture concerning  thePerpetuity  of  the  Friefthood,  &  King- 
dom of  Jefus  Chrift,  and  of  the  Laws  and  Ordinances  of 
the  New-Teftament  :  and  whatever  Opinion  makes  this' 
Suppofition  neceftary  for  its  Support,  that  any  of  theOr- 
dinances  of  JefusChrift  havefailed  in  theUniverfalChurch 
for  any  one  Age,  much  more  for  feveral  Ages  together ; 
in  that  veryThing  it  gives  Ground  of  juft  Prejudice  to  all 
Chriftians  againft  thatOpinion,and  it  ought  to  be  rejedled 
as  abfurd,  and  inconfiftent  with  the  Scripture-Dodrine  of 
the  immutable  and  perpetual  Exercife  &  Adminiftration 
of  the  Priefthood  &  Government  of  Chrift  by  the  Laws 
and  Inftitutions  which  he  has  enaded  in  the  Gofpel,  and 
with  the  Promife  of  his  continued  Prefence  with  his  Mi- 
nifters  and  Churches  in  the  Obfervance  of  them  'till  his 
fecond  Coming.  And  whether  this  may  not  be  juftly  faid 
of  the  Opinion  of  our  Anti-pa  dob  apifts^  we  fhall  fee  in  the 
Sequel.  In  the  mean  Time,  I  ihall  briefly  confider  what 
our  Author  has  to  fay  upon  thofe  feveral  Heads  of  the 
three  laft  Confequences  referred  to. 
.  Under  the  third  Head  ho,  fays,  Pag.  lo.  "  that  upon  the 
"  Principle  of  adult  Baptifm,  as  necelTary  to  the  Com- 
"..  munion  of  ChurcheSjit  foliows,that  no  unbaptiz'dPer- 
"  fon  is  regularly  called  to  the  Preaching  of  the  Word 
'"^  and  Adminiftration  of  Ordinances,or  can  be  a  regular 
''Communicant :"  yet  in  the  lamePage  he  fays,  "  thac 
".;theWord  may  be  truly  preached,  and  the  Ordinance  of 
'^  the  Lord's- Sapper  duly  adminiftred  by  an  irregular 
"  Man"  (i.  e.  a  Man  unbaptiz'd,whoias  noCall  orConi- 
miffionj  "  and  may  be  made  ufeful  for  Converfion,  and 
*'  C  omfort."  What  .is  this  but  to  fay,that  tho'  intheCom- 
munion  of  the  vifiUe  Church,  it  is,  upon  the  Principle  of 
adult  Btrptifni;  unwarramable,,  aud.unlawful  for  any  un- 

birptized 


^4  'A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  II, 

baptized  Perfon  to  preach  the  Word,  or  adminifter  the 
Ordinances,  yet  out  of  the  vifible  Church  it  may  be  done 
by  Perfons  fo  unquahlied,  and  that  to  faving Advantage  ? 
And  fo  that  which  has  been  hitherto  maintained  by  allPr^- 
/^^«/j,againft  the  Romanijls^to  be  the  Note,  or  Mark  of 
a  true  vifible  Church,  namely,  the  found  Preaching  of  the 
Word, and  dueAdminiftration  of  the  Sacraments,  accord- 
ing to  our  Author,  is  not  proper  or  pecuUar  to  it  ;  for  it 
may  belong  to  other  Societies  without  the  Church.  But 
how  can  the  Lord's-Supper  be  faid  to  be  duly  adminiflred 
ly  an  irregular  Man^  i.  e.  by  an  unbaptizedMan,and  chat 
to  unbaptiz'd  Receivers  ?  And  that  this  is  his  Meaning, 
is  evident  from  the  Tenor  of  his  Reafoning  againft  the 
Dialogue.  And  if  that  may  be  called  a  dueAdminiftration 
of  the  Lord's  Supper,  where  both  the  Adminiftrator  and 
Receivers  are  irregular,  being  unbaptiz'd,  I  know  not 
when  it  may  be  faid  to  be  unduly  and  irregularly  admi- 
niftred.  I  grant,  that  "  theUfe  andEfficacy  of  the  Word 
"  and  Ordinances  do  not  depend  on  the  Minifter,  but 
*'  uponGod  himfelf,"  and  therefore  not  upon  the  internal 
Charader  of  the  Adminiftrator,  who  may  be  at  Heart 
a  wicked  Man,  but  upon  the  BlefQng  of  God  on  his  own 
Ordinances  ;  but  then  he  muft  have  a  Call  and  Ordina- 
tion from  God  to  thatMiniftration  ;  otherwife  the  Sacra- 
ments can't  be  properly  called  the  Ordinances  of  God,  in 
the  Hands  of  one  who  takes  upon  him  to  be  theAdmini- 
flrator  of  them,  who  is  himfelf  unordained,  and  uncalled 
of  God  •,  nor  can  his  Bleffing  be  rationally  expeded  to 
attend  them. 

He  fays,  ibid.  "  God  can  and  docs  fometimes  make 
"  ufe  of  his  ow^n  Word  for  Converfion,  tho'  preach'd  by 
"  an  irregular  &  even  an  immoral  Man" — Anfiv.  The 
Fa61:  is  not  fo  clear  as  to  be  taken  for  granted,  but  re- 
quires Proof,  as  tjiac  whigh  may  be  jullly  queftioned. 
But  whatGod  may  or  can  do,  out  of  his  fovereign  Prero- 
gative, is  no  Rule  to  us,  but  what  we  have  Warrant  from 
his  Word  to  depend  on  that  he  will  do  -,  and  if  we  will 
be  guided  by  that  Kuk  of  Judgment,^  we  ihall  fee  little 

or 


Chap.  II.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  65 

or  no  Reafon  to  cxpedl  any  faving  Advantage  from  the 
Miniftry  of  thofe  that  have  no  Call  or  CommiiTion  from 
Godjwho  faith  of  the  Prophets  in  7/r<3^/,which  ran  before 
they  v^ere  fent,  Jer.  23.  21,  32.  Ifentthem  not^  nor  com- 
manded them^  therefore  they  jh  all  not  profit  this  People  at  all. 
Under  xhtfotirthlieadoi  Confequences,  he  fays,  P.  1 1. 
*'  ThePeriod  of  Time  pitched  upon  for  thePrevalence  of 
*'  Infant-Baptifm,  is  very  unhappy  for  the  Credit  of  it, 
*'  both  as  to  the  Beginning  and  End  ;  as  to  the  Begin- 
*'  ning  of  it,  in  the  fourth  Century,  a  Period  in  which 
*'  Corruption  in  Do6lrine  and  Difcipline  flowed  into  the 
«'  Church."—  But  hold  here,  Sir,  — Who  is  ir,  I  pray, 
that  has  pitched  on  this  Period  of  Time  for  the  Rife  or 
Prevalence  of  Infant-Baptifm  ?  Not  theAuthorof  theZ)/^- 
logue^  nor  any  other  of  zhcP^dobapti^s^v/ho  all  afTign  the 
Term  of  its  Commencement  to  the  Age  of  Chrifl  and  his 
Apoftles,  and  that  Author  particularly  had  very  plainly 
exprefled  his  Sentiments  to  this  Purpofe  •,  Dial.  Pag.  S. 
Only  for  the  betterConvidion  of  theParifhioner  he  waves 
it,  and  infills  only  on  an  Argument  from  the  ConcelTion 
of  his  Adverfaries,  who  moftly  agree,  that  Infant-Baptifm 
began  to  be  a  general  Praflice  in  the  Church  about  the 
third  oc  fourth  Century.  Now  how  unfair  &:  difingenu- 
ous  is  it  in  our  Author,  to  turn  that  to  the  Reproach  and 
Difcredit  of  the  Caufe  of  the  P^dohaptifts^  which  is  the 
meer  Conceit  and  Invention  of  his  own  Party,  and  con- 
trary  to  the  Sentinients  of  all  the  Pc^dobaptifts  ?  and  this, 
only  becaufe  the  Minifter  in  the  Dialogue  admitted  it  as  a 
Suppofition,  for  the  Sake  of  what  they  call  an  Argument 
ad  hominem  ?  Do  they  make  this  ConcefTion,  only  to  up- 
braid and  Calumniate  us  ^  Then  they  ought  to  take  Care 
that  theCalumny  be  laid  at  theDoor  of  the  rightAuthors.^ 
j  and  not  impofe  on  the  fimple  Reader,  as  if  we  allowed  i:, 
I  and  own'd  it  to  be  juft.  Our  Author  has  told  usjthat  the 
I  Period  of  Time  pitched  on  for  the  Prevalence  of  Infant- Bap- 
'  tifm  is  very  unhappy  for  the  Credit  of  it^both  as  to  its  Begin- 
ning and  End,  And  we  have  heard  fomething  as  to  the 
Beginning  of  it.  But  how  is  it  unhappy  for  the  Credit  of 

F  "     ^       '  !l 


66  J  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  II^ 

it  as  to  itsEnd  ?  Of  this  he  fpeaks  but  fparingly  :  but  it 
ran  in  his  Thoughts  (it  feems)  that  it  ended  with  the  be- 
o-inning  of  the  Reformation,  (for  between  the  fourthCenr 
tury,  and  thatTime  comes  in  thePeriod  which  he  affigns 
for  the  Darknefs  and  Superftition  of  Popery.)  But  herein 
he  is  greatly  miilaken  ;  for  tho'  theBeginning  of  thePre- 
valence  of  the  Se6l  of  the  Anahapti^s^  and  divers  other 
Se6ls,  may  be  dated  about  the  Time  of  the  Reformation, 
yet  P^dcbaptifm  ftill  prevailed,  and  all  the  Reformers 
were  in  the  Practice  of  it,  and  many  of  them  aflerted  and 
defended  it  in  iheir  Difputations  6c  Writings,  againft  its 
Adverfaries.  And  there  never  was,  nor  is  there  at  this 
Day,  any  nationalChurch  in  the  World  butPasdobaptills, 
either  among  the  Greeks,  the  Romari-Catholicks,  or  the 
Keiormed,  as  Dr.  IVall  has  proved  at  large,  f  And  that 
all  that  go  under  the  Chriflian  Name  in  4fia  &  Africa^ 
as  far  as  they  may  be  called  nationalChurches,under//(?^- 
then  and  Mahometan  Powers  •,  the  Armenians^  Maronites^ 
the  Chriflians  of  6V.  nomas  in  the  Indies^  the  Cophti  of 
E^ypt^  and  the  Abaffenes,  do  all  pradife  Infant- Baptifm  : 
and  that  Antlp^dobaptifm  never  obtain'd  to  be  the  efta- 
bhfh'd  Religion  of  any  Country  in  the  World  :  but  thofc 
that  profefs  it  gje  a  Scd:^  that  differ  from  the  Body  of 
Chrillians  in  all  Countries  where  they  refide.  And  I  am 
on  good  Grounds  perlwaded,thatPasdobaptifm  will  never 
have  an  End  till  the  End  of  Time  ;  but  that  it  will  ftill 
prevail,  as  the  inftituted  Means  of  the  Continuance  and 
Propagation  of  the  vifible  Church  of  Chrifl,  as  long  as 
he  hath  a  Church  in  the  World  ;  which  the  Principles  of 
the  Antip^dobaptifts  have  a  manifeft  Tendency  to  ob- 
itrucf,  by  cutting  off  the  Succeffion  of  a  vifible  Seed  in  the 
natural  Branches.  And  if  the  Term  affign'd  by  our  Ad- 
verfaries for  the  Beginning  of  the  Prevalence  of  Infant- 
Baptifm,  be  unhappy  for  itsCredit  in  the  fourthCentury, 
when  Corruption  flowed  into  the  Church  j  furely  it  is  not 
much  more  happy  for  the  Credit  of  Antipicdobaptifm, 
(,tho'  it  fell  out  about  theTime  of  theReiormation^bee^un 

f  Hifl,  of  Infant-Baptifm,  Part  H,  Chap.  8. 


Chap.  II.  of  Infant -Baptifm.  67 

by  Luther ^A^mo  Domini  i^iy*  or  rather  five,  orfixYears 
alter  it)  that  it  had  its  Beginning  and  Prevalence  under 
the  Condud:  of  fuch  a  Sort  of  Men,  who  are  known  and 
confefs'd  to  be  theBlemifh  &Scandal  of  the  Reformation, 
and  the  greateft  Obftacle  to  the  Progrefs  of  that  glorious 
Work  ;  and  by  their  wild  Opinions  and  Practices,  threw 
Germany  into  a  Tumult.  And  Pm  confident,  Dr.  GillhsLS 
no  Opinion  of  any  Reputation  gain'd  to  his  Caufe  from 
thatEvent  •,  by  the  fame  Token,  that  he  takes  it  as  a  Re- 
proach to  be  told  of  the  Afi^air  of  Munfier  in  ourDifputes 
with  them.  And  I  own  it  a  Reproach  unjuflly  cad  upoa 
our   prefent  Antipasdobaptifis  (which  therefore  I  wou'd 
conftantly  refrain  from)  to  tax  them  with  the  other  perni- 
cious Principles,  and  Pra6lices  of  the  Old  German  Ana- 
baptifts,  which  they  profefledly  renounce,  and  abhor,and 
while  they  do  fo.     And  tho'  it  had  the  Hap  to  be  co- 
incident in  Time  with  theReformation,  for  which  Reafon 
our  Author  and  thoie  of  hisPerfuafion  wou'd  have  a  Share 
in  that  glorious  Name,  yet  in  Truth  it  derived  no  more 
Credit  thence,  than  the  Tares  from  the  Wheat  in  our  Sa- 
viour's Parable,  becaufe  they  grew  up  together,  much  at 
the  fameTime,  and  in  the  fame  Field.  It  is  granted,  that 
it  was  not  inconfiftent  with  Chrifl's  Veracity  in  his  pro- 
mifed  Prefence  with  his  Church  &  faithful  Minifters,  to 
permit  PopiQi  Abufes  and  Superftitions  to  prevail  in  the 
Church  j  yet  our  Author  is  grofsly  miftaken,    when  he 
infinuates  thatlnfant-Baptifm  was  one  of  tl-iofe Abufes  and 
Corruptions.   For  theCorruptions  of  Popery  did  not  con- 
fift  in  abolifhing  any  plain  Gofpel-Infticution,  (which  it 
muft  have  done,  according  to  the  Sentiments  of  our  Ad- 
verfaries,  if  Infant-Baptifm  be  a  Nullity)  but  all  facred 
Ordinances  of  Jefus  Chriil  which  he  appointed  for  Conti- 
nuance in  his  Church, were  by  his  over-rulingProvidence 
prefervedjas  totheirSubn:ance,in  thofeTimes  of  Apoflacy, 
and  under  the  greateltDarknefs  of  Ignorance  &:Superftiti- 
on  in  thatPeriod;  but  theSuperftitions  of  Popery  confifted 
in  the  corrupt Additions,of  Men's devifing,to  thelnftituti- 
ons  of  Chrilt,  and  in  the  mixture  of  human  Inventions, 

F  2        ^  whereby 


6?  A  Defence  of  the^  Bivine  Right  Chap.  II. 

whereby  the  pureWorfliip  and  Ordinances  of  the  Gofpel 
were  adulterated  &  extremely  defiled.  And  confequent- 
ly  the  Work  of  the  Reformation  was  not  to  revive  any 
Ordinance  of  Chrift  that  had  been  loft,  ov  was  abolifh'd 
inPopery,  (as  thefe  Men  pretend)  but  to  throw  off  thofe 
c.orruptAdditions,and  to  purge  theOrdinances  from  thofe 
impure  Mixtures,  by  reducing  them  to  the  Rule  of  the 
\Vord,  and  thereby  to  correct  the  Errors  and  Abufes  that 
had  crept  into  the  Worfhip  of  God  ,  and  not  to  fet  up 
any  new  Inftitution,  that  had  been  out  of  Ufe  before. 

He  adds  further,  P  12.  "There  were  WitnefTes  for 
"  adult  Baptifm  in  every  Age,  and  Chrift  had  a  Church 
"  in  theWildernefs  in  Obfcurity,  at  this  Time  %  namely, 
*'  in  theVallies  oi  Piedmont. — Who  bore  theirTeftimony 
*'  againftlnfant-Baptifm." — He  feems  tohave  amiftakcn 
Notion  of  that  prophetickEmblem  of  a  Woman  flying  into 
the  Wildernefs^  Rev.  12.  6.  While  he  appropriates  it  to 
thofe  Chriftians  in  theVallies  oi  Piedmont.^  who,  it  is  true, 
witnefs'd  againft  the  Apoftacy  of  the  Church  of  Rome  ; 
But  were  almoft  conftantly  harrafs'd  with  Perfecutions 
from  the  Popifh  Party.  Doubtlefs  the  truer  Interpreta- 
tion is,  that  the  Apocalyptical  Writer,  in  theUfe  of  that 
Emblem,  alludes  to  the  Church  of  Ifrael  fled  into  the 
Wildernefs  from  Pharoah  (who  in  prophetick  Scripture 
is  called  the  Dragon)  which  was  a  State  of  Deliverance 
to  the  Church,  and  ot  Efcape  from  EgyptianTy vjinny  and 
"  OpprefTion,  and  a  middle  State  between  the  Bondage  of 
Egypt^  and  the  Reft  of  Canaan.  In  AUufion  whereunto, 
the  State  of  the  New  Teftament  Church  is  (inRcv.  12.) 
defcrib'd  in  it's  Deliverance  from  theDragon,or  from  the 
the  Perfecution  of  the  Heathen  Emperors,  and  its  Refto- 
ration  to  a  State  of  Liberiy  and  Peace,  which  vv^as  a  great 
Mercy  to  the  Church,  and  the  Means  of  its  glorious  En- 
largement ;  which  yet  was  but  a  middle  State  between 
the  Tyranny  of  the  perfccuring  Heathen  Powers^and  the 
Reft  and  Happinefs  of  the  Kingdom  of  Chrift  when  it 
comes  in  its  tull  Power  and  Glory.  But  let  it  fignify  the 
Church  of  Chrift  in  Obfcurity,  as  it  was  under  thcReign 

of 


Chap.  II.  cf  Infant-Baptifni,  69 

of  Popery  •,  the'  I  apprehend,  in  a  different  Senfe  from 
that  which  is  intended  by  ourAuthor ;  yet  I  can't  be  per- 
fwaded  that  the  Kingdom  of  Chrift,  even  in  the  Height 
of  Antichrift's  Reign,  was  of  no  greater  Extent  than  the 
Vallies  o^  Piedmont :  Since  there  were  many  among  other 
Chriftian  Nations  of  Europe^  who  rofe  in  that  Period  as 
WitneiTes  againft  the  Apoftacy  of  the  Church  of  Rome  -, 
as  may  be  feen  inBifhop  UJher  de  Succefftone  et  fiatu  Ecck- 
fiarum^  &:c.  and  divers  other  Authors.  But  that  any 
Churches  in  thofe  'V ?^\t%  fuccejfively  bore  T^eftimony  againft 
Infant-Baptifm^  is  a  meer  Surmife  of  ourAuthor,that  has 
never  been  prov'd  •,  tho'  feveral  Antipsedobaptili Writers 
have  attempted  to  prove  it  (as  our  Author  likewife  pre- 
tends to  do)  yet  have  fail'd  in  the  Attempt  5  their  Alle- 
gations from  ancient  Writers  for  thisPurpofe,  have  been 
prov'd  by  their  Anfwerers  to  have  been  either  Mifrepre- 
fencations  of  the  Authors  they  have  cited,  or  nothing  to 
their  Purpofe.  However,  as  if  it  had  been  fully  proved, 
and  that  therefore  the  Antipaedobaptifts  were  the  only 
true  Church,  and  had  engrofs'd  the  gracious  Prefence  of 
Chrifl  to  themfelves,  he  concludes  this  Head  thus  ;  "  It 
*'  will  lie  upon  thisWriter  and  his  Friends,  to  prove  the 
"  gracious  Prefence  of  Chrifl  in  the  Adminiflration  of 
"  Infant  Baptifm."  Here  he  gives  us  a  Specimen  of  his 
Charity,  in  reprefenting  it  as  a  Thing  that  needed  Proof, 
that  the  Padobaptifts  have  the  Prefence  of  Chrifl  with 
them  in  their Adminiflrations !  When  it  will  ferve  ourAu- 
thor*s  Turn,  and  his  Caufe  requires  it,  he  can  eafily  llip- 
pofe,  that  an  irregular  or  even  an  immoral  Man  may  ad- 
minifler  theOrdinances,and  that  to  faving  Advantage  for 
Converfion  and  Comfort.  And  what  does  this  impiy,but 
the  fpiritual  Prefence  of  Chrifl  in  fuch  Adminiflrations  ? 
But  now  it  feems,  it  requires  Proof,  that  a  Ps^dobaptilt 
has  any  Thing  of  the  gracious  Prefence  of  Chrifb  in  his 
Adminiflration  of  theOrdinances  !  One  would  think,that 
to  a  charitable  Man,  there  would  need  no  other  Proof  of 
this,than  the  vifibleEfFects  of  his  fanclifying  GracCjwhich 
have  appeared  ia  many  Thoufands  that  have  receiv'd  no 

F  3  other 


70        A  'Defence  of  the  Bivine  Right  Chap.  IL 

other  Baptifm,  than  that  in  their  Infant-Age.  Had  not 
Chrifl  a  Church  in  England^hdoxt  the  Rile  of  the  Antip^- 
dobaptifts  there,which  was  long  fince  theBeginning  of  the 
Reforqiation  ?  For  in  lefs  than  two  Hundred  Years  ago, 
there  was  not  an  Englijh  Antipasdobaptift  known.  And 
v/as  not  Chrift  gracioufly  prefent  with  his  Church  then  ? 
Had  not  theMartyrs  who  fufFered  inQiieen  M^r/sReign, 
the  Prefence  of  Chrift  with  them,  Cranmer,  Ridley,  Lati- 
mer.  Hooper,  Bradford,  Philpot,  thofeholy  Men,  and  vaft 
Numbers  befides,  who  were  all  Psedobaptifls  ?  The  laft 
mention'd,PM;>^/,a  little  before  hisMartyrdom,boreTel- 
timony  againft  the  Errors  of  the  Anabaptiils  (which 
feerned  then  to  have  got  Footing  mEngland,  and  to  have 
been  Matter  of  Debate,  tho'  not  openly  profefs'd  by  any 
Englifloman)  in  a  Letter  he  wrote  to  one  of  hisFellow-Pri- 
foners.  *  Do  I  need  to  add  the  numberlefs  Inftances  of 
Children  in  pious  Families,  who  have  been  Subjeds  of 
fandlifying  Impreffions  from  their  early  Childhood,  by 
Means  of  no  other  than  Infant-Baptifm  ?  Or  does  he  re- 
quire it  to  be  prov'd  by  an  Argument  d  Priori  F  This  is 
done  as  often  as  we  prove,  that  Baptilm  adminiftred  to 
Infants  is  an  Inflitution  of  Chrift,  and  that  it  has  been 
the  Pradice  of  the  Univerfal  Church  from  the  Days  of 
the  Apoftles.  But  by  what  Argument  he  will  prove  it 
incumbent  on  the  Paedobaptifts  /<?  prove  the  graciousPre- 
fence  of  Chrift  with  them,  &c.  I  know  not  •,  unlefs  it  be 
what  Logicians  call  Petitio  Principii,  or  the  begging 
the  Thingin  Queftion  (and  I  am  fenfible  he  can  by  no 
other  Argument  prove  the  Prefence  of  Chrift,  in  Way  of 
Difcrimination,  with  the  Antipsedobaptifts  in  the  Admi- 
niftration  of  Adult-Baptifm  ]jox  unlefs  they  cou'd  prove, 
that  Adult-Baptifm  only  was  ttielnftitution  of  Chrift,and 
that  that  only  has  been  in  Ufe  all  along  in  theUniverfal 
Church  from  the  Days  of  the  Apoftles,  (which  it  is  im- 
pofiible  for  them  to  do)  it  argues  nothing  but  Weaknefs 
andVanity,  join'd  with  an  uncharitable  Spirit,  to  demand 

of 

f  Fox'&  ACis  &  Mojiuments.  Vol.  III.  P.  606. 


Chap.  II.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  71 

of  us  Proof  of  Chrlft's  gracious  Prefence  in  the  Admini- 
ftration  of  Infant-Baptifm. — 

Under  his  fifth  and  lafl  Head,  vi%,   "  That  upon  the 
"  Pnnciples  of  rejedlinglnfant-BaptifmCiff.  it  is  not  pofli- 
«'  ble  there  fhould  be  any  Baptifm  at  all  in  the  World, 
"  either  among  the  P^dobaptifts  or  Antipsedobaptifls," 
He  tells  us,  P^.  13,14.  "  The  Englifh  Antipaedobaptifts 
*'  when  they  were  firft  convinced  of  the  NecefTity  of  fet- 
"  ting  a  Reformation  on  Foot  in  this  Matter,  met  toge- 
*'  ther,  and  confulted  about  it :     When  they  had  fome 
"  Difficulties  thrown  in  their  Way  about  a  proper  Ad- 
"  minftrator  to  begin  this  Work,  fome  were  for  fending 
"  Meflengers  to  foreignChurches,who  were  theSuccefibrs 
"  of  the  ancient  Waldenfes^  in  France  znd  Bohemia  ;  and 
"  accordingly  did  fend  over  fome,  who  being  baptized, 
"  returned  &  baptized  others."     But  whence  he  had  this 
Piece  of  Hiflory,  he  has  not  inform/d  us  :  And  whom  he 
calls  the  Succefibrs  of  the  ancient  TValdeyifes^  I  know  not. 
The  Prot  eft  ants  mLntber^s  Time,  in  Germany^  France  and 
Bohemia^  were  accounted  the  true  Succefibrs  of  the  ancient 
Waldenfes  -,  who  were  notof  theAntip^dobaptift  Perfwa- 
rion,as  fhall  be  fhcwn  hereafter.     But  it  looks  pretty  odd, 
that  they  fhould  fend  Abroad  to  procure  a  proper  Admi- 
niftrator  of  Baptifm  according  to  their  Opinion,when  the 
foreign  Antipaedobaptifts  were  ready  enough  to  meet  them 
at  Home  *,  many  of  whom  came  {xovnHolland  and  the  lo'-jo 
Countries^  after  the  Affair  of  Munfter^  mioEngland^  before 
any  Englijhman  profeffed  himfelf  of  their  Opinion  j  and 
thefe  were  of  two  Sorts,  as  Bp  Burnet  obferves  ♦,   "  Some 
"  only  obje6lcd  to  the  baptizing  of  Children,   and  the 
"  Manner  of  it  by  Sprinkling,&  not  by  Dipping.  Others 
"  held  many  Opinions  that  had  been  anciently  condemn- 
"  ed  as  Herefies."f     So  that  doubtlefs  they  might  have 
found  a  proper  Adminiftrator  in  theirWay,wichout  fend- 
ing into  toreign  Countries,and  that  before  any  of  the£;;^- 
lijh  Nation  had  gone  over  to  that  Sed.    YoxFuller^on  Oc- 
cafion  of  his  giving  an  Account  of  a   Congregation  of 

F  4  Vutcb 

t  Abbrldg.  gf  theHift,  of  the  Reform.  Book  II.  P.  84. 


72  J  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.  IL 

Dutch  Anabaptifts,  that  were  difcovered  without  Aldgate 
in  London,  fays,  "  Now  began  xh^AnabaptiJls  wonderfully 
"  to  increafe  in  the  Land,  and  as  we  are  forry  that  any 
"  Country  Men  fhould  be  feduced  with  this  (Dpinion,  fo 
*'  we  are  glad  that  the  Englijh  were  yet  free  from  that  In  - 
"  fedlion."*    This  was  in  the  1 8th Year  o'i  Q^Elizabeth 
A.  D.  1575-   Two  of  the  aforemention'dx^nabaptifls  that 
we^e  mollobftinate,being  condcmn'd  to  be  burnt,  Mr,i^i?;«r, 
the  ".•artyrologift,  in  a  very  movingLetter  to  the  Queen, 
i;-iterceeded  for  the  fparing  their  Lives,  or  that  a  milder 
Punifliment  might  be  infli&d  on  them  than  burning.    In 
the  Letter,which  is  recited  at  large  in  Fuller ^\\t  calls  them 
Foreigners,  not  Englifhmen  ;  and  gives  thanks  to  Chriji^ 
that  at  that  Time  he  knew  of  none  among  theEnglifh  acceffory 
or  addi^ed  to  this  Madnefs  ;  |1  fo   he   caDs  their  Errors. 
And  fo,  it  feems,  the  Forwardnefs  of  this  S^^di  in  coming 
over  to  ipread  their  Tenets  in  En^land^  might  have  laved 
the  firft  j£w^///??Antipasdobaptifls  the  Labour  andTrouble 
of  fendingAbroad  for  anAdminiftrator  of  Baptifm  in  their 
Way.    But  be  this  as  it  will,   our  Author  lays  no  great ^ 
Strefs  upon  it,  but  feems  to  intimate  that  there  were  but 
fome  few  that  took  this  Courfe  ;  the  reft  made  noScruple 
of  receiving  their  firftBaptifm  in  this  Way  fromtheHands 
of  an  unbaptized  Perfon.     And   our  Author  pleads  for 
the  Lawfulnefs  of  it  in  the  Cafe  of  a  general  Corruption, 
which  he  fupppofes  to  have  been  the  Cafe  with  Refped  to 
Baptifm  :  Of  this  fomething  hath  been   fpoken  before. 
But  fince  wc  admit  no  fuch  Cafe  to  have  happened,  efpe- 
ciaHy  in  fuch  a  Degree  as  to  annul  the  Ordinance  of  Bap* 
tifm,  and  have  no  Ground  from  the  Word  of  God  to  be- 
lieve it  ever  will  happen,  and  confequently  no  Dire6lions 
thence,  as  to  what  ought  to  be  done  in  fuch  a  Cafe  •,  We 
therefore  look  upon  it  as  a  rafh  Interpofition  of  Man's 
Judgment,  to  determine  what  may  lawfully  be  done  in  the 
Cafe  fuppofcd.     i^  he  had  remembred  and  well  confidered 
Z^;;r/'j's  Words  in  Reference  to  the  prefent  Cafe,  v/hich  he 

recites 

*  Church  Ilifl.  Book  IX.  P.  104,  || //;/V. His  Words  in  his  Latin  Letter 
to  *....:^QueeR  arc^  4'n^lorum  hodie  nsmimm  huie  iujl.nia;  nj^^ncm  I'id^o. 


Chap.  II.  ^/  Infant-Baptifm.  73 

recites  in  the  next  Page,  wz.  "What  cannot  bedeter- 
*'  mined  by  the  Word  of  God,  we  fhould  not  dare  to  de- 
*'  termine  •,"  perhaps  he  had  been  more  modeft,  or  lefs 
confident  in  his  Determinations. 

But  I  mull  here  briefly  animadvert  on  the  Injullice  he 
has  done  the  Writer  of  the  Dialogue,in  charging  his  Sup- 
pofition  with  an  abfurd  Confequence  it  will  by  no  Means 
admit.  For  he  hys^Pa.  15.  "  According  to  this  Man's 
"  Train  of  Reafoning,  there  never  was,  nor  could  be  any 
"  valid  Baptifm  in  the  World  -,  for  Jobn  the  firft  Ad- 
"  miniftrator  being  an  unbaptized  Ferfon,  the  whole 
"  SucceflTion  of  Churches  from  that  Time  to  this  Day, 
"  mud  remain  unbaptized." —  For  that  Writer  had  in 
exprefs  Words  (and  thofe  quoted  by  Dr.  Gill  himfelf,P^. 
13.)  guarded  his  Suppofition  with  an  Exception  or  Li- 
mitation,that  fully  obviates  thisConfequence,to  thisEfFedl; 
That  in  Cafe  Infant-Baptifm  be  a  Nullity  (it  being  admi- 
niftred  to  the  firft  Antipasdobaptifls  by  thofe  that  had  no 
other  Baptifm  themfelves)  there  can  be  no  true  Baptifm 
now  in  the  World,  either  among  them,  or  us,  adding  in 
exprel^  Terms,  until  there  be  a  new  Commijfion  from  Heaven 
to  renew  and  reft  ore  this  Ordinance.  And  had  not  John 
the  Baptifl  a  CommiiTion  fromHeaven  ?  ne  Bapifni  of 
John  whence  was  it  ?  of  Heaven^  or  of  Men  ?  Where 
then  is  the  Juftice  of  the  Refiedion  on  this  Man's  Train 
of  Reafoning  ?  Was  there  ever  an  AntipasdobaptifV,  that 
could  produce  the  likeEvidence  from  Heaven, as  we  have 
for  John's  Miniflry  and  Baptifm  ?  But  the  mofl  flagrant 
Inftance  of  Uncharirablcnefs  occurs  in  the  clofe  of  that 
Chapter.  After  a  long  Citation  komZanchy^  who  brings 
inTho. Aquinas  taking  it  upon  him  to  decide  the  Quef]  ion. 
Whether  he  that  was  never  baptized  may  baptize  another  ? 
This  he  determines  in  the  Affirmative,  from  a  Decree  of 
Pope  Nicolaus  (fo  I  perceive  popifn  Authority  is  better 
than  none  at  all,  elfe  Womens  and  Midwives  Bap- 
til  qi  had  wanted  Authority. J  And  after  mentioning 
leveral  Cafes  in  v/hicli  he  thinks  it  may  be  done  ;  which 
is  difapproved  by  Zancby^,  for  ihe  Kcafoa  before  re- 
cited 


74  ^  Defence  of  the  Divine  R\ght         Chap.  If.  I 

cited,  viz.  What  cannot  he  determined  hy  the  Word  of  God^ 
we  Jhotild  not  dare  to  determine —  He  (i.e.  Zanchy)  puts  a  j 
Cafejwherein  he  is  of  Opinion,  that  the  Determination  is  !| 
moreeafy,  that  it  may  lawfully  be  done.     The  Cafe  is  ||- 
this,  "  Suppofing  a  Turk  in  a  Country  where  he  could  ^ 
"  not  eafily  come  at  Chriftian  Churches,  he  by  reading  [ 
"  the  New  Teftament  is  favour'd  with  theKnowledge  of 
*'  Chrift,and  with  Faith,  he  teaches  his  Family,and  con- 
*'  verts  that  toChrift,and  fo  others  likewife.   The  Quef- 
''  tion  is,  Whether  he  may  baptize  them  whom  he  has 
"  converted  to  Chrift,tho'  he  himfelf  never  was  baptized 
"  with  Water-Baptifm  ?    1  don't  doubt  but  he  may,  and 
"  on  the  other  Hand,  take  Care  that  he  himfelf  be  bapti- 
*'  zed  by  another  of  them  that  were  converted  by  him. 
*^  The  Reafon  is,becaufe  he  is  a  Minifter  of  the  Word  ex- 

*'  traordinarily  raifed  up  by  Chriil" The  Cafe  here 

fuppos'd,  of  a  Turk  converted  only  by  reading  the  New- 
Teftament  and  converting  others,  was  never,  I  believe,  a 
Cafe  in  Fadl,  nor  ever  likely  to  be,  without  fome  extraor- 
dinary Infpiration,  which  virtually  includes  aCommiffion 
fromGod.  AndZancby  feems  tofuppofe  the  fame,in?;alling 
fuch  an  one  aMiniJler  extraordinarily  raifed  up  byChrift:  and 
fo  there  is  nothing  in  the  Cafe  that  favours  our  Antipse- 
dobaptifts  •,  unlel^  they  pretend  to  an  extraordinary  In- 
fpiration and  Miffion  (this  indeed  was  pretended  by  fome 
at  their  firilRife  in  G^;7;2^;n', about  twoCenturies  ago)  but  I 
hope  there  are  but  fcw,at  thisDay,fo  wild  &  frantick,  as  to 
appear  tojuftify  fuch  Enthufiaftick  Pretenfions.  And  yet 
even  in  the  Age  of  Infpiration,the£/Z''/^/?^^;/Eunuch  was  not 
converted  by  reading  the  Scriptures,  buf  by  Philips  direc- 
ted to  him  by  the  extraordinary  Miniftry  of  an  Angel  to 
guide  him  to  a  right  Underftanding  of  what  he  read,  and 
to  preach  Jefus  to  him,  and  fo  to  baptize  him  upon 
the  Profeffion  of  his  Faith.  Aci.  8.  However,  admit  the 
Suppofition,  for  Argument  fake  •,  what  does  our  Author 
colledl  hence  ?  Take  it  in  his  own  Words,  P.  17.  "  The 
"  Reafon  Zanchy  gives,  will,  I  think,  hold  good,  in  the 
^^  Cafe  of  the  firll  Aniipadohaptifrs  in  England''  The  Rea- 


Chap.  1L  ef  Infant-Baptifm.  74 

fon  which  Zanchy  gives,is,that  the  Perfon,m  the  Cafe  fup- 
pofed,  living  among  Mahometans^  could  have  no  Accefs 
to  Chriftian  Churches  and  Minifters  for  the  Ordinance  of 
Baptifm,  as  well  as  that  he  is  himfelf  a  Minijler  ey.traor- 
dinarily  raifed  up  hyChrift.  And  will  either  of  thefe  hold 
good  in  the  Cafe  of  iht^v^AntipcedobaptiJlsm  a  Chriftian 
Nation, where  all  agree  in  the  ProfefTion  of  Faith  &  Sub- 
jedion  to  the  fame  Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  and  in  the  Symbol 
of  their  Profellion,  in  one  and  the  fame  Baptifm,  differ- 
ing only  in  the  Age  of  receiving  it,  and  in  the  Mode  of 
Adminiftration  ?  What  is  this  but  to  fay  in  plainEnglifh, 
As  good  receive  Baptifm  at  the  Hands  of  one  who  is  a 
Believer  \nMahomet^2iS  of  aPasdobaptift  -,  and  theReafons 
that  juflify  the  Refufal  of  theformer,as  anAdminiilrator, 
will  hold  good  with  Refped  to  the  latter  ?  Thus  our 
Author  concludes  this  Chapter,  in  great  Charity  (no 
Doubt)  to  the  reft  of  his  fellow  Chriltians  -,  if  any  fuch 
there  be,  who  are  not  of  his  ov/n  Perfuafion. 

There  are  many  Errors  in  Matters  of  Religion,  v/hich 
yet  are  confiftent  with  a  good  Temper  of  Mind,  with 
Humility,  Meeknefs  and  Love,  and  with  all  the  other 
Graces  of  the  Spirit,  which  frame  theHeart  for  Chriftian 
Communion,  even  with  thofe  that  are  not  in  every  Parti- 
cular of  our  own  Perfuafion  •,  and  vv^hile  they  are  but  Er- 
rors of  Judgment,  not  joined  with  an  obftinate  Will, and 
perverfe  Affedions,  and  Men  are  open  to  divine  Light, 
and  ready  to  admit  the  Evidences  of  Truth,  as  foon  as 
they  difcern  them,  it  is  to  be  believed,  that  God,  inCom- 
paflion  to  the  frail  and  fallible  Mind  of  Man,  will  gra- 
cioufly  overlook  them.  Or  elfe  Wo  to  the  beft  Maa  liv- 
ing whoknows  but  in  Part,  and  confequently  muft  be  lia- 
ble to  Error.  But  it  is  a  particular  Inftance  of  the  Un- 
happinefs  of  the  Antip^dobaptift  Opinions,  that  thofe 
who  embrace  them  in  ail  their  rigid  Notions,  are  made 
therewith  to  imbibe  uncharitable  Prejudices  againft  all 
other  Chriftian  Churches  and  ProfeiTors,  and  to  difown 
their  vifibleCommunion, and  even  theirChriftianity  \t.k\t^ 
confining,inEficcf,that  honourable  and  v/orthy  Name  to 
thofe  of  thdr  owa  Sed,  CHAP. 


76  A  Defence  of  the  Livine  Right        Chap.  IIL 

Chap.     IIL 

The  Antiquity  of  the  Praftice  of  baptizing 
Infants,  even  from  the  Days  of  the 
Apoftles,  maintain'd  againft  Dr.  GiU\ 
Exceptions. 


o^pD^.&^oHEN  there  appears  good  Scripture- Warrant  for 
claWcS:?  ^^  Baptifm  of  Chriftian  Infants,  it  is  but  of 
'^^^  fmall  Confequence,  to  one  whofe  Mind  is  fet- 
.^.  .^  .«•  ^|g^^  jj^  ^  £j.^  Belief  of  divine  Revelation,  and 
in  a  fixed  Purpofe  to  govern  himfelf  by  that  Revelation 
in  all  Matters  of  religiousPra6lice,whether  or  no  theCaufe 
of  Infant-Baptifm  may  receive  any  additional  Enforce- 
ment from  human  Authority,  or  thePra6tice  of  Antiquity  : 
Yet  or  fome  Confequence  it  is  to  know  howMatters  flood 
in  theChriftian  Church,efpecially  in  the  primitive  Times, 
with  Reference  to  this  Pra6tice.     For, 

I.  If  it  be  found  thatAdult-Baptifm  only  was  pradlis'd 
in  the  primitive  Church,  and  the  Baptifm  of  Infants  was 
generally  in  Difufe  ;  we  muft  conclude  either,/7y/?,  That 
the  primitive  Chriftians  liv'd  in  the  Omiflion  of  a  clear 
and  plain  Duty.  Which  Suppofition  is  unreafonable,  as 
well  as  uncharitable  ;  for  thofeChriflians  had  theApoftles, 
and  apoflolical  Men  for  their  Guides  in  the  Obfervance 
of  tlie Ordinances  of  divine  Worfhip  •,  and  have  been  had 
in  Reputation  with  the  Church  in  all  fucceedingAges  for 
their  Piety  and  Purity  :  The  Infant- Age  of  the  Church 
being,  doubtlefs,  theAge  of  its  greatefl  Innocence  &  free- 
dom from  Corruption.  Or  Secondly^  Wemufl  conclude, 
that  thofe  Texts  of  Scripture,  on  which  we  ground  the 
Pradlice  of  Infant  Baptifm, were  differently  underftood  by 
the  ancient  Fathers,  to  whom  they  did  not  appear  to  be 
fo  clear  a  Warrant  for  this  Pra6lice,as  to  us  they  feem  to 
be.    Could  this  be  made  to  appear,  it  fliould  put  us  upon 

a 


Chap.  III.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  77 

a  more  narrow  and  clofe  Examination  of  the  Grounds  of 
our  Pradice,  in  order  to  a  juilDetermination  of  cheSenfe 
of  thofe  Texts,  which  we  take  for  our  Warrant,  that  we 
might  know  whofe  Interpretation  is  mod  agreable  there- 
unto. This  is  that  which  our  Antipasdobaptifts  wou'd 
have  to  be  the  real  State  of  theCafe,  that  Intant-Baptifm 
was  not  in  ufe  in  the  primitiveChurch,but  was  ot  -a  much 
later  Date.  And  if  this  could  be  once  proved, they  would 
gain  much  to  their  Caufe.  But  on  the  other  Hand, 

2.  If  it  appears,  as  far  as  can  be  known  from  the  Re- 
cords of  Antiquity,  that  the  baptizing  of  Infants  was  the 
conftant  and  general  Pradice  of  the  Church  from  the 
ApoftlesTimes,  we  niuft  undoubtedly  conclude,that  they 
founded  it  on  the  Authority  of  divinelnflitution-,  &  then  ic 
will  alfo  follow,that  admitting  theGrounds  of  ourPradice 
(which  we  produce  from  Scripture)  to  be  doubtful,  or  not 
fo  clear  as  we  pretend  'em  to  be,  which  fome  aver  (  and 
what  is  there  fo  clearly  deliver'd  in  Scripture,  which  the 
reftlefsWits  of  Men  influenced  byPride,Prejudice,  Party- 
Zeal,  and  a  Spirit  of  Contradidion,  have  not  call'd  in 
Quellion,  andftudied  to  render  doubtful  ?)  We  mull  be 
fettled  and  determined  inFavourof  Infant- Baptifm.  For 
the  conflant  Pradice  of  the  Univerfai  Church  fhould  in 
allReafon  be  allowed  to  be  the  bed  Interpreter  of  a  doubt- 
fulLaw.  And  how  far  thePsedobaptifts  have  thisDecifion 
of  the'Ancients  in  their  Favour,  will  appear  from  what 
follows. 

But  if  after  all  our  Search, Antiquity  be  found  filenton 
this  Head,  fo  that  no  Argument  can  be  produced  for, 
or  againft  Infant- Baptifm,  from  the  antient  Writings  of 
the  Church,  we  are  then  juft  where  we  were  before,  and 
mud  reft  content  with  the  ible  Authority  of  the  facred 
Scriptures,  which  is  fufRcient  to  us.  In  the  mean  Time, 
this  may  undeniably  be  pleaded  in  our  Favour,  that  fo 
far  as  we  can  with  Certainty  trace  the  Pradice  of  theUni- 
verfal  Church  in  Reference  to  Infant-Baptifm,  which,  by 
theConfeflion  of  ourAdverfaries,is  as  far  as  tothe  third^ov 
fourth  Century,  wQ  have  it  intirely,  and  without  Difpute 

on 


78  A  Befeme  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.  III. 

on  our  Side.  They  contend,  indeed,  for  an  Exception  of 
an  handful  of  Men  comparatively,  in  fomeAges  pa{l,but 
upon  no  certainGroLinds,  till  the  Sed  of  the  Anabaptifts 
arofe  in  Germany  about  the  Time  of  the  Reformation. 

The  fcriptural  Grounds  of  the  Adminiftration  of  Bap- 
tifm  to  Chriftian  Infants  will  be  produc'd,  and  vindicated 
in  the  two  next  Chapters.  But  the  Miniller  in  the  Dia- 
logue having  drop'd  thefe  few  Hints,  incidentally,  and 
by  the  by,  without  pretending  to  infill  on  them,  viz. 

1.  "  That  Intant-Baptifm  conftantly  obtain'd  in 
«  the  truly  primitive  Church  :  And  that  there  is  un- 
*'  doubted  Evidence  of  this  from  the  antient  Fathers." 

2.  "  That  it  can't  be  pretended,that  this  Pradice  was 
*'  called  in  Queftion,  or  made  Matter  of  Debate  in  the 
"  Church,  till  the  Madmen  of  Mun§fer — fet  themfelves 
*'  againft  it."  And  particularly,  3.  "  That  the  antient 
*'  IValdenfes  being  in  the  conftant  Pra61ice  of  Adult- Bap- 
*'  tifm,  is  a  chimerical  Imagination,and  to  be  rejeded  as. 
"  a  groundlefsFigment."  Dial.  P.  7,  9.  Thefe  fewHints 
have  furnifh'd  out  Matter  to  our  Author  for  his  third 
Chapter,  on  which  I  am  now  to  make  fome  Remarks. 
To  proceed  then  with  our  Author,  according  to  the 
Method  and  Order  of  the  foremention'd  Heads  — 

I.  "Thatlnfant  Baptifm  conftantly  obtained  in  thetru- 
"  ly  primitiveChurch."  Dr. Gz7/,to confute  thisAfTercion, 
would  have  "  the  truly  primitiveChurch"  confined  to  the 
Times  of  Chrift  &  hisApofbles,  including  only  theChurch 
of  the  firllCentury,  (But  why  may  not  the  Church  of  the 
fecond,  and  third  Century  too  be  truly  primitive  ?  or  at 
what  Year  will  he  fix  the  Bounds,  after  which  theChurch 
ceafed  to  be  truly  primitive  ?)  And  then  infills  upon  the 
old  triteObjedlion  from  theSilence  of  Scripture  -,  and  hav** 
ing  produced  the  feveral  Inllances  of  Adult- Baptifm  re- 
corded in  the  New-Teflament,  where  there  is  no  mention 
of  Infants,  would  have  us  thence  conclude,  that  none  fuch 
were  baptized  •,  at  lead,  that  there  is  no  Evidence,  that 
they  were.  Firft.  He  alledges  the  Inftance  of  thofe  who 
were  baptized  by  our  Lord^  i.  e.  by  the  Miniflry  of  his 

Difciplesa 


Chap.  III.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  '  79 

Difciplcs,  Joh,  4.  I,  2.  But  left  we  fhould  think  there 
were  any  Infants  among  them,  he  is  careful  to  note,  they 
were  "firft  madeDifciples — and  then  baptized" — Which 
we  readily  grant,  but  deny  that  it  concludes  any  Thing 
againftlnfantsbeing  baptized.  But  of  this  more  hereafter, 
Secondly^,  He  proceeds  to  a  large  Recital  of  the  Baptifms 
adminifler'd  in  the  feveral  Churches,  as  recorded  iii  the 
A^s  of  the  Apoflles  •,  particularly  in  the  Church  at  Jerufa- 
lem,to  the  threeThoufands  converted  at  Pentecoff  j  in  the 
Churches  at  Samaria^  Philippic  and  Coruith^  to  thofe  of 
Adult  Age,  who  are  faid  to  have  heard  and  believed^  and 
to  be  baptized.  And  is  particularly  concern'd,  under  each 
Inftance,  to  put  his  Reader  in  Mind,  that  there  is  no 
Mention,  or  Intimation  of  any  Infants  that  were  baptized. 
P.  18,19,20.  But  what  of  all  this  ?  Does  Dr.  G/7/ think, 
that  theP^dobaptifts  have  never  read  theNewTeftament, 
or  the  Ads  of  the  Apoilles,  with  Attention  and  Care  ? 
Or  that  he  advances  any  Thing  new,or  flrange  to  them, 
for  their  Convidion,  which  they  never  took  Notice  of 
before  ?  They  well  knew  all  this,  that  the  facred  Hifto- 
rian  gives  an  Account  only  of  the  Baptifms  of  theAdult, 
and  makes  no  exprefs  mention  of  Infants  baptiz'd,  and 
need  not  this  particular,  and  long  Recital  for  their  Infor- 
mation orConvidlion.  This  is  indeed  a  Topick  on  which 
the  Antipsedobaptiil  Teachers  make  their  moft  plaufible 
Harangues,  and  work  much  upon  the  ignorant  Vulgar, 
who  never  obferv'd,  or  confider'd  this  before,  that  the 
many  Inilances  of  Baptifm  mention'd  in  the  New-Tefta- 
ment,  are  all  of  adult  Baptifm,  and  not  one  fingle  Verfe 
mentions  the  Baptifm  of  Infants.  Surely  ^  (think  they) 
thefe  Men  muft  have  theTruth  on  their  Side,  who  adhere 
fo  clofely  to  the  exprefs  Word  of  God.  Yet  to  the  more 
intelligent,  'tis  all  but  an  empty  Shew,  a  meer  flourifh 
of  Words  •,  and  is  of  no  Weight  to  prove  the  Thing 
defign'd,  either  that  no  Infants  were  baptiz'd  in  thofe 
Times,or  that  there  is  no  Evidence  of  it.         For, 

1 .  The  P<TdQbaptifts  do  not  place  the  Evidence  of  In- 
fant-Baptifm, in  the  Hiftory  of  Fad,  or  in  any  exprefs 

Mention 


So  ^A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.  IIL) 

Mention  of  it  in  the  New-Teftament.      No  Man  ever* 
pretended  it ;   and  no  fuch  Thing  is  afferted  in  the  Bia-l 
logue-,  but  the  Evidence,  that  Intant-Baptifm  univerfally 
obtained  in  the  primitive  Church,  is  therein  refer'd  to  the, 
Tcllimony  of  the  ancientFathers  ;  who  do  indeed  atteft  it, 
as  will  appear  under  the  next  Head.  Neverchelefs  there  is 
f  J  much  Evidence  from  Scripture  concerning  thisMatce*-, 
as  to  a  fober  impartial  Mind  may  leave  it  a  Thing  patt 
all  reafonable  Doubt,  that  Infants  were  baptized,  even  iai 
theApoftlesTimesi  tho'  not  from  any  exprefsDeclarations 
of  Fad  therein,  yet  from  divers  other  Confideracions  laid 
together.  E.G.  From  Chrift's  receiving,and  owning  little 
Children  as  the  Members  of  his  ChurchjOrSubjefls  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God,  which  he  came  to  fet  up,  to  eftablifli 
and  propagate  among  Men  •,  his  ordering  his  Apoilles  to 
admit  little  Children  Difciples,or  Profelytesto,him,which 
is  meant  by  his  faying  to  ihcm, Suffer  littkChildren  to  come 
unto  me^  Luk.  18.16.  Which  might  ferve  forDire6tion  to 
the  Apoftles  in  the  Adminiftration  of  Baptifm,  as  to  the 
difputed  Subjed  of  it  :  Nor  can  they  in  Reafon&  Juflice 
be  fuppofed  to  have  with-held  that  inllitutcd  Symbol  of 
AdmilTion  into  the  vifible  Kingdom  of  God,  from  thofe 
of  whom  Chriit  had  plainly  declared  his  Mind,  that  they 
fhould  be  received  and  own'd  as  the  Subjeds  of  it.  Add 
to  this,thc  Confideration  of  theRule  which  ih^Jews  went 
by,according  to  divine  Appointment,  in  admitting  Pro- 
felytes  into  the  Church  of  Ifrael;  which  was,to  receive  all 
the  youngChildren  of  profelyted  Parents,from  eightDays 
old  and  upv/ards,into  the  Covenant  of  the  God  o{  Ifael^ 
together  with  their  Parents,by  the  inilituted  Rite  of  Cir- 
cumcifion.     This  being  the  known  &  eftabf  rh'dCuilom 
in  the  Jewijh  Nation,  and  that  by  the  Ordinance  of  God, 
{E^od.  12.48,49.)  ferved  alfo  for  a  Rule  to  the  Apoftles, 
in  adminiftring  the  Chriflian  Circumcifion   (as  Baptifm  is 
called,C^/.2.ii,i2.)  to  the  young  Children  ot   Parents 
profelyted  to  the  New-Teftament  Church.     For  if  the 
Children  of  profelytedParents  had,beforeChrift'sCoiTiing, 
by  a  divine  Appgintment,a  Right  to  God*s  Covenant  and 

the 


Chap.  IIL  of  Infant-Baptifm.  Si 

the  Seal  thereof,  we  cannot   fwi'hout  derogating   from 
the  Honour  of  Chrift,and  leflening  hisGrace  andKindnefs 
to  Man,  which  he  has  fo  abundantly  manifefted,and  even 
to  httle  Children^  conceive  that   he   came  to  dif^ofTefs 
Infant-Children  of  this  their  ancientRight,  and  cutthem 
off  from  theCovenant-Mercies  ofGod.  And  confequently, 
it  may  be  fairly  gather'd  from  the  Confideration  of  the 
wholeHoufholds  baptized,of  which  there  is  exprefs  Men- 
tion in  the  New-Teftament,  which  to  a  Je^jj  (whofeLan- 
guage  is  imitated  by  the  facred  Writers  of  the  New- 
Teflament,  and  for  whofe  Ufe  primarily  their  Hiflorical 
Writings  were  intended)  wou'd  leave  no  more  Grounds 
of  doubting,  whether  Infants  in  thofe  fevcral  Houfholds 
were  baptiz'd,  than,  if  it  had  been  faid,  that  fuch  aParent, 
or  Mafter,  and  all  that  were  his^  or  all  his  Houftoold  were 
circumcifed,  it  would  have  been  Matter  of  Doubt  with 
him,  whether  he  had  any  Infants  circumcifed.     Let  me 
only  add  the  Confideration  of  the  Children  of  Believers 
being  accounted, or  numbered  amongD//?/p/^j(  Ad.  1 5.10.) 
and  Saints^  or  the  Holy.  (i.Cor.  7.  14.)  Which  are  Titles 
or  Charadlers  commonly  given  to  the  baptized,  at  leaft 
they  mark  out  fuch  as  are  qualified  for  Baptifm.     I  fay, 
ail  thefe  Confiderations  laid  together,  (and  divers  others 
might  be  added)  tho'  they  don't  amount  to  a  full  con- 
vi6tiveEvidence,erpecially  to  aCaviiier,yet  to  thofe  whofe 
Minds  are  not  warp'd  with  prejudicateNotions  &  Opini- 
ons, fo  as  to  hinder  their  paffing  an  equal  and  impartial 
Judgment,  they  muft  appear  of  fo  much  Weight,at  leaft, 
as  to  render  it  more  than  probable,  that  the  Practice  of 
baptizing  Infants  obtained  in  the  Apoftles  Times.    Such 
Evidence  we  have  in  Scripture  of  the  Probability  of  it : 
and  if  we  add  hereto  the  Teilimony  of  the  Ancients,  this 
will  put  the  Matter  out  of  Queftion.     And  thele  living 
nearer  the  Age  of  the  Apoftles,  are  reafonably  to  be  ad- 
mitted as  competent  WitnelTes,  and  capable  of  giving  us 
a  true  Information  of  what  the  general  Practice  was  ia 
that  Age.     And  their  Teftimony   in  Behalf  of  Infant- 
Baptifm  is,  on  this  Account,  the  more  credible,  in  that 

G  it 


^z  A  Defence  of  the  'Divine  Right  Chap.  III. 

it  perfedlly  agrees  with  theScripture,and  is  no  other  than 
what  a  Man  would  in  Reaibn  exped,  who  has  read,  and 
confider'd  thofe  Paffages  of  Scripture  that  render  it  ex- 
ceeding probable  that  this  Pradlice  generally  obtain'd  at 
that  Time.  The  Conhderations  I  have  fuggefted  being 
fome  of  the  Scripture- Arguments  which  we  make  ufe  of 
in  the  Defence  ot  the  Right  of  Infants  to  Baptifm,  are  in- 
deed excepted  againft  by  our  Adverfaries,  and  by  Dr. 
Gill  in  particular,  which  will  give  me  Occafion  to  fay 
fomething  hereafter  in  Vindication  of  them. 

2.  On  Suppofition  that  the  Baptifm  of  Infants  was  ge- 
nerally pradtis'd  in  the  Apoftles  Times,  there  may  yet  be 
good  Reafons  given,  why  the  facred  Hiftorian  paiGTes  it 
over  in  Silence  :  Becaufe  the  chief  Subject  and  Scope  of 
his  Writing  were  Matters  of  far  greater  Importance,fuch 
as  the  teflifying  the  Refurre6lion  of  Chrift,  his  Afcenfion 
into  Heaven,the  Defcent.of  the  Holy  Gho{l,the  Sermons 
and  Difcourfes  of  the  Apoftles,  the  Miracles  they  wro't, 
the  wonderful  Succefs  ot  theDo6trine  they  preach'd, their 
Confultations,Travels,Sufienngs,thefpreadingoftheGof- 
pel  into  many  Heathen  Countries,  ^c,  Thefe  are  great 
Things,  and  of  high  Importance,  that  employ'd  the  Pen 
of  the  infpired  Hiftorian,  that  it  is  no  Wonder  at  all  he 
does  not  defcend  to  fo  minute  a  Particular,  as  the  bap- 
tizing of  Infants  :  confidering  withal,  that  the  Inftances 
of  Baptifm  which  he  has  recorded  are  but  few  in  all,  in 
Comparifon  of  the  many  Thoufands  converted  by  the 
Apoftles  Miniftry,and  the  manyChurches  planted, which 
he  has  given  anAccount  of,  v;ithout  faying  any  Thing  of 
their  Baptifm.  And  tho'  the  Apoftles  had  it  in  their 
Commiftiun  to  baptize,as  well  as  to  preach,  and  a6tually 
did  baptize,  yet  their  main  Work  and  Bufinefs  was  to 
preach  the  Gofpel.  As  Faid  faith  of  himfelf,  giving  the 
Reafon  why  he  baptized  lb  few,  i  Cor.  i.  1 7.  For  Chri§l 
fent  me  not  to  baptize^  but  to  preach  theGofpeL  The  Work 
of  baptizing  was  ordinarily  committed  to  inferiour  Mini- 
fters,  or  fuch  whom  the  Apoftles  deputed  to  that  Service. 
Thereigre  we  have  no  Reafon  to  expeCl  to  find  in  fuch  a 

brief 


Chap.  III.  ^/  Infant-Baptifm.  83 

brief  Hiftory  as  the  A5ls^  a  particular  Detail  of  all  that 
were  thus  baptiz'd  ;  for  as  this  Hiftory  is  entitled  the 
A^s  of  the  Apo§iles^  fo  the  facred  Writer  confines  himfelf 
very  much  to  that  Subie6t,and  touches,  but  incidentally, 
other  Things.  There  are  diverfe  otherThings  of  as  great 
Confequence,  of  which  we  might  defire  a  more  particular 
Account,  which  are  pafs'd  over  by  the  facred  Hiftoriaa 
with  as  much  Silence  as  Infant-BaptifmjOr  with  but  very 
general  Hints.     But  we  muft  thankfully  accept  and  im- 
prove what  is  written,  which  the  Wifdom  of  God  faw 
lufficient  for  us,  and  moreover,  has  given  us  Reafon,  and 
a  Capacity  to  ufe  it  in  fearching  his  Mind  and  Meaning 
therein  ;    whether  plainly  exprefs'd,  or  by  juft  Confe- 
quence to  be  deduced  from  what  is  written.      And  as  to 
the  Point  of  Infant-Baptifm,  fuch  Hints  are  left  on  Re- . 
cordjin  Reference  to  that  Practice,as  are  fufficient  to  give 
Satisfadion  to  well  difpofed  Minds.     The  Baptifm  of 
whole  Houlholds,  fo  exprefly  mention'd  more  than  once, 
is  as  much  as  may  be  expected  in  fo  brief  a  Narrative  of 
the  great  Tranfadions  of  thofe  Times.     And   fome  ob- 
ferve,  that  "  of  the  fix  Baptifms  (which  are  all  that  St. 
*'  Faiil  is  mention'd  to  have   been  concerned  in)  three 
"  were  the  Baptifms  of  whole  Houfholds  •,  fuch  a  one, 
*'  and  all  hisr  * 

3.  In  that  there  are  fo  many  Inftances  of  Adulc-Bap- 
tifm  recorded  in  the  New-Teftament,  and  none  expre/ly 
of  Infants,  the  Reafon  is  obvious  to  all  that  underftand 
and  confider  the  State  of  Affairs  in  thofeTimes.  Chrifti- 
anity  was  then  a  new  Religion  to  the  whole  World.  The 
Apoftles  were  not  fent  to  thofe  who  had,  or  knew  any 
Thing  of  the  Chriflian  ProfefTion  before,  but  to  Jews  and 
Heathens ^ysho  could  not  pofTibly  haveChriftian  Baptifm  in 
thcirlnfancy  •,  therefore  of  NecefTity  they  muft  firft  preach 
the  Gofpel  to  the  Adult,  to  bring  them  overtothe  Faith 
and  ProfelTion  of  this  new  Religion,  before  they  them- 
felves,  or  their  Children  could  be  baptized.  And  there- 
fore the  Converfion  and  Baptifm  of  the  Adult  was  of  the 

G  2  greateft 

•  miPi  Hift.  of  Infan;-Baptifm,  Par^  II.  Chap.  X.  §.  3. 


S4'  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  R\ght        Chap.  HI. 

greatcfl:  Account,  and  deferv'd  more  particularly  to  be 
recorded,  as  the  Pfedobaptiils  grant-,  tho'  they  fuppofe, 
the  Baptifm  of  their  Infants,  when  they  had  any, followed 
of  Courfe  •,  and  was  known  to  do  fo  (by  theApotlles  and 
thofc  of  that  Age)  in  the  Jewifh  Church,  whole  common 
Cuftom  it  was  to  baptize  all  the  lnfants,or  littleChildren 
of  Profelytes,as  well  as  tocircumcife  all  theirMales,whom 
they  received  with  their  Parents  into  the  Covenant  of  the 
God  of  Ifrael.  And  this  may  be  another  Reafon  why  the 
facred  Writer  is  fo  fparing  in  the  mention  ot  Infants  bap- 
tized ;  becaufe  the  Cuftom  of  the  Jews  was  well  known, 
in  baptizing  Children  with  their  Parents,who  were  profe- 
lyted  to  their  Religion,  *  that  a  particular  Account  of 
them  was  needlefs.  For  there  can  be  but  little  Doubt, 
that  theApoftles  proceeded  by  the  fameRule  in  admitting 
the  little  Ones  of  thofe  whom  they  made  Difciples  (or  pro- 
felyted  to  the  Religion  of  Jefus  Chrift)  into  theChriltian 
Covenant  by  the  fameRite  of  Baptifm.  That  Argument, 
therefore,  of  the  AntipjEdobaptifts,  taken  from  the  want 
of  plain  Examples,  or  Precedents  in  Scripture  of  Infants 
baptized,  wherewith  they  make  fuch  a  Flourifh,can  have 
its  Weight  or  Force  with  commonPeople  only  fromtheir 
Ignorance,  or  want  of  attending  to  this  Confideration  of 
the  Condition  of  thofe  Times,  which  was  far  different 
from  the  prefenr.  They  are  apt  to  meafure  theScripture- 
Accounts  of  Baptifm,  by  what  they  now  obferve  in  Chri- 
flian  Countries,  where  there  is  but  here  &  there  one  adult 
Perfon  baptized  for  many  Scores  of  Infants  ;  not  confi- 
dering,that  in  thofe  firftTimes  of  the  Gofpel  all  theV/orld 
was  without  Chriftian  Baptifm  •,  and  that  thofe  whom 
the  Apoftlcs  preached  to,  and  converted,  were  all  adult 
Perfons  -,  ail  and  every  one  born  of  Parents  unbaptiz'd, 
being  Strangers  to  the  Chrillian  Religion  :  So  thatAduk - 
Baptifms  were  vaitly  more  numerous  than  the  Baptifms 

of 

*  This  is  attefied  by  the  mod  of  ]carnedMen,\vho  have  been  conver- 
fant  in  the  ancientWritings  of  the  Jews;  particularly  mDY.Lightfcct 
we  find  laige  Citations  from  the  Rahhi's  in  his  Hora;  Hehriac.  on 
iVJatt.  3.  and  other  Parts  of  his  Works,  fliewing  that  little  Children 
ofProfclytes  were  efteeni'd  by  them  as  Profelytes,  being  received  as 
fuch  by  Baplfr.i  together  wich  QircuTnciJlon. 


Chap.  III.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  85 

of  Infants,  as  well  as  more  remarkable.  And  fo  Luke^% 
Account  of  Adult  Baptilms  in  his  Hiftory  of  the  A5ts  of 
the  Apo§iles  dot%  very  well  confift  with  the  Suppofition  of 
Paedobaptifm  obtaining  at  that  Time,  efpecially  if  we 
fuppofe,  ("as  I  have  lliewed  it  realbnable  to  fuppofe)  it 
was  taken  for  granted  at  the  fame  Time,  that  thofe  of 
the  Adult,  who  had  Infants,  had  them  alfo  initiated  by 
Baptifm  into  the  fame  Religion,  v/hich'they  profefs'd 
themfelves.  For  thisAccount  is  no  other  than  what  any 
P^dobaptill  would  have  given.  Suppofe  fomePasdobap- 
tift  iVIinifters  fent  into  anHeathen  Country,  which  4^ever 
had  the  Gofpel  preached  to  them  before,  and  writing  a 
brief  Account  of  their  Succefs  fhould  fay,  that  feveral 
Hundreds  or  Thoufands  were  profelyted  to  Chriftianity, 
and  baptized  -,  and  particularly  fom^e  noted  Families  rea- 
dily &  joytuiiy  embraced  the  Gofpel,  and  were  baptized, 
fuch  a  Man  and  all  that  were  his,  fuch  another  and  bis 
Houjhoid  \  who  could  raife  a  Doubt,  whether  anylnfants, 
or  Perfons  in  an  infantile  State,  were  baptized  in  thofc 
feveral  Families  ?  If  we  take  a  View  of  the  New-Tefta- 
ment-Hillory  of  Baptifm  in  this  Light,  the  not  men- 
tioning Inlant's  Baptifm  exprefly,  need  not  Humble  us  in 
the  leait,bejng  no  Way  inconfiilent  with  our  Suppofal  of 
the  Practice  of  it.     Wherefore  let  me  fay, 

4.  That  if  there  be  no  dired  Evidence  for  Infant-Bap- 
tifm from  the  hiftorical  Relation  of  Fa6ls  in  the  New- 
Teftament,  furely  no  Argument  againft  it  can  be  made 
out  from  the  Silence  of  the  facred  Writers  in  Reference 
thereunto.  It  has  never  been  accounted  a  good  Way  of 
arguing,  todrav/ Conclufions,as  to  Matters  of  Fa6V,from 
the  Silence  of  the  Scripture  \  or  to  conclude  fuch 
a  Thing  was  not  done,  becaufe*  the  Scripture  hath  no 
where  faid  it.  This  might  be  fhewed  in  innumerable  In- 
ftances  ;  particularly  withRelation  to  the  prefentSubjedl', 
it  will  follow  from  thisWay  of  Reafoning,that  mofl:  of  the 
Churches  mention'd  in  the  New-Tellament  as  founded 
by  the  Apoftles,  were  unbaptized^  becaufe  no  mention  is 
made  of  their  Baptifm  by  the  facred  iliftoriitn.  Our  Au- 

G  5;  thor 


S6  'A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  IIL 

thor  has  reckon'd  up  three  or  four,  and  thefe  are  all  I  caa 
find,  whofeBaptifm  is  regillred  :  Shall  we  then  conclude 
that  the  Church  at  Antioch^  at  Iconium^znd  divers  others, 
mentioned  in  the  Jdls  of  the  Jpojiles,  and   the  famous 
Churches  of  the  Galatians^  of  the  Romans^  of  the  Tbejfalo- 
nians^  of  the  Coloffians^  and  many  others,  were  all  unbap- 
tized,  becaufe  there  is  no  hiftoricalAccount  of  their  Bap- 
tifm  in  the  New-Teftament  ?  One  may  read  the  Hiftory 
of  the  Old-Teflament  for  feveral  Ages  together,  and  not  . 
find  an  Inftance  of  anyChild  circumcifed.     Did  the  Jews 
then  Jive  all  that  while  without  circumcifing  theirlnfants  ? 
I  need  not  fland  to  fliew  the  Weaknefs  &  Fallacy  of  fuch 
anArgument,  which  is  open  to  every  Man  of  Senfe.    But 
it  is  as  good  as  that  which  is  bro't  againftlnfant-Baptifm 
from  the  Silence  of  Scripture  in  that  Matter.     There  is 
no  Need  of  Examples,or  Precedents,  when  there  is  other- 
wife  fufBcient  Warrant  for  any  Pradlice.     But  if  fuch  an 
Argument  as   this  be  of  any  Force,   it  may  with  equal 
Force,   be  turned  againfl  our  Antipaedobaptifts.     They 
demand  of  us  aScrlpture-Precedent,orExample  of  Infant- 
Baptifm  -,  and  we  demand  of  them  a  Scripture-  Precedent 
or  Example  of  Adult-Baptifm  in  their  Way  ;  which  they 
are  not  able  to  produce.     I  imagine,  they  will  prefently 
reply  and  fay.  Do  not  all  the  Inftances  of  Baptifm  in  the 
New-Teftament  make  for  ourSide,who  were  onlyPerfons 
baptiz'd  at  Adult- Age  ?  I  anfwer,  not  one  ;  and  to  ex- 
plain and  prove  what  I  afiert,   let  me  obferve,  that  the 
Controverfy  between  us  and  the  Antipsedobaptifts,  does 
not  lie  in  this,  v/hether  Adult  Perfons  unbaptiz'd  ought 
to  be  baptized  ?    This  fully  agrees  to  our  Sentiment  and 
Pradice,  as  well  as  to  theirs.     But  the  Controverfy  lies 
here.  Whether  Children  born  of  baptized  Chriftian  Pa- 
rents, ought  to  be  denied  Baptifm  till  they  grow  up  to 
mature  Age  ?  This  they  affirm,  and  we  deny.  So  that  if 
they  could  produce  a  Thoufand  Inftances  of  Perfons  bap- 
tiz'd at  Adult-Age,who  were  born  of  JcwiQi  or  Heathen 
Parents,  who  had  neither  received  nor  were  in  a  Rapacity 
XQ  receive  Chriftian  Baptifm  before,  it  would  fignify  no- 
thing 


Chap.  IIL  of  Infant-Baptifm.  87 

thing  to  thelrPurpofe  :  for  by  fuchlnflances  their  peculiar 
Practice  (as  it  difagrees  with  that  ot  the  Psedobaptifts)  is 
not  at  all  to  be  juftified     But  if  they  would  produce  an 
Inftance  pertinent  to  their  Caufe,  it  mufl  be  of  fuch  as 
were  unbaptiz'd  till  Adult- Age5who  had  baptizedChrifti- 
ans  for  their  Parents.  And  fuch  an  Inftance,  I  fay,  they 
cannot  produce ;  for  of  all  theExamples  ofAdult-Baptifn:^ 
regiftred  in  the  New-Teftament,  there  is  not  fo  much  as 
one  fingle  Inftance  of  a  Perfon  who  can  be  proved  to  be 
born  of  Chriftian  Parents.     If  they  fay,  we  demand  a 
Thing  unreafonable  and  impollible  \  for  Chriftianity  had 
juft  then  its  Rife  in  the  World,when  theNew-Teftament 
Hiftory  was  written,  fo  that  in  that  Space  of  Time  there 
could  be  none  born  of  Chriftian  Parents  grown  up  to  a 
Capacity  for  Adult-Baptifm,  to  have  their  Baptifm  re- 
gifter'd  in  facred  Hiftory  :  I  anfwer,theThing  demanded 
is  neither  impoflible,  nor  unreafonable  ;  for  the  Hiftory 
of  the  A5ls  is  fuppofed  to  contain  the  Space  of  about 
Thirty  Years,  from  Chrift's  Afcenfion,  to  FauV^  impri- 
fonment  at  Rome,  So  that  the  Chriftian  Church  had  been 
growing  from  its  Infancy,and  Baptifm,  as  the  folemnRite 
of  Admiflion  into  it,  had  continued,  during  theTimes  of 
the  Scripture-Hiftory,  near  Thirty  If  ears.     And  in  that 
Space  of  Time,  there  were  many  Thoufands  born  of 
Chriftian  Parents,  and  grown  up,  many  to  near  30  or  40 
Years  of  Age,  if  we  fuppofe  the  young  Children  of  the 
firft  baptized  Chriftians  to  be  left  unbaptiz'd,  and  many 
Thoufands  more,  who  might  within  that  Space  have 
grown  up  to  an  Age  capable  of  Adult-Baptifm  \  and  if 
none  of  thefe  were  baptized,  while  Infants,or  youngChil- 
dren,  nor  included  in  the  feveral  Houfholds  baptiz'd  by 
the   Apoftles,   there  is  no  Regifter  of  the  Children  of 
Chriftian  Parents  baptiz'd  at  all.     For  it  is  certain,there 
is  not  one  Inftance  of  any  of  thefe  baptiz'd  at  Adult- Age, 
Therefore  if  the  not  mentioning  the  Baptifm  of  Infants  in 
Scripture  be  a  good  Argument  againft  it,  we  fee,  it  turns 
as  forceably  againft  our  Adverfaries,who  by  their  Way  of 
Reafoning  about  theSiibjefl  of  Baptifm>furnifli  the.Quak- 

G  4.  "^  eri 


S8  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Ghap.  III. 

ers  with  an  Argument  againfi;  all  Water  Baptifm  fince  the 
Adminiftration  of  it  to  the  firft  Chriftians,  which  upon 
their  Principles  they  may  find  it  difficult  to  anfwer. 
Let  me  only  add, 

5.  Tho'  it  be  granted,  that  there  be  no  plain  exprefs 
Examples  of  Infants  beingbaptized  in  theNew  Teftament, 
Yet  there  are  pretty  plain  Intimations  of  fuch  Baptifms  in 
niofl;  of  the  Churches,  our  Author  has  inftanc'd  in.  For 
to  touch  briefly  on  each  of  his  Inft ances.  Firft^  As  to  the 
Church  at  Jerujalem^  and  thofe  that  were  converted  by 
the  Apoftle  Peter's  Sermon,  The  Apoftle  had  directed 
them,  being  convinced  of  their  Sins,  and  pricked  at  the 
Hearty  to  repent  and  embrace  Chriftian  Baptifm,  and  en- 
forc'd  his  Advice  by  this  Argument,  For  the  Promife  is 
to  you^  and  to  your  Children.  Ad;.  2.38,39.  They  readily 
and  joyfully  received  the Apoftle's  Advice,  2LX\diwere  bap^ 
tized.  y^  41.  I  know,  it  is  commonly  taken  for  granted, 
that  thofe  Three  Thoufands  mention'd  in  the  latterClaufe 
of  that  Verfe,  were  the  fame  that  heard  the  Apoflle's 
Sermon  and  were  baptized,  &  it's  underfbood  as  fpecifying 
the  Number  of  his  Converts.  But  I  would  offer  it  toCon- 
fideration  (without  laying  much  Strefs  on  the  Criticifm) 
whether  the  Grammatical  Conflrudlion  of  the  Words 
will  tairly  admit  of  this  Senfe.  The  Words  of  the  facred 
Penman  are,  I' hen  they  that  gladly  received  the  Word^  were 
haptized ;  and  the  fame  Day  there  were  added  to  them  about 
Three  Thou f and  Souls.  The  firft  Converts  are  defcribed  in 
the  former  Claufe,  ^hey  that  gladly  received  the  Word^were 
laptized.  And  we  readily  grant, theic  wereAdultPerfons  ; 
and  if  it  had  been  only  further  faid,  and  tt  efe  were  about 
Three  Thoufand  Souls,  it  had  agreed  well  with  the  com- 
mon Opinion.  But  it  follows,^;^?^  the  fame  Day  there  were 
(idded  to  them  about  Three  Thoufand  Souls —  were  added. 
Flow  ?  DoubtlefsbyBaptifm,thefacredRiteof  Admiffion 
into  the  Chriftian  Church.  To  whom  were  they  added  ? 
To  what  Antecedent  do  thcfc  Words  refer  ?  To  what 
other  can  they  refer  more  properly  than  to  the  next  fore- 
going ;  thofe  lir^t  gladly  received thelFcrd^iverebaptiz^ed? 

And 


Chap.  III.  of  Infant-Baptirm.  ^9 

And  if  they  were  added  to  them,  they  were  not  the  fame. 
If  it  be  faid,  they  were  added  to  the  Apoflle-,,  and  the 
Hundred  and  Twenty  Difciples,  that  conftituted  the  firft 
Chriftian  Church  •,  the  Words  then  mufl  refer  to  a  very 
remote  Antecedent,  as  far  off  as  Chap,  i.  13,  14.  or  at 
leaft,  the  Beginning  of  this  fecond  Chapter.  For  which 
remote  Reference  there  appears  no  Reafon,  or  NecefTity, 
when  they  may  with  the  greateft  Propriety  be  underilood 
as  referring  to  the  immediately  foregoing  Llaufe,  as  the 
Rules  ofGrammar  feem  to  require.  And  thefameDay  there 
were  added — On  whatDay  P  The  fameDay  on  which  thofe 
firft  Converts  (of  whofe  Number,  tho'  doubtkfs  great, 
there  is  no  certain  Account)  were  baptized,  there  were 
added  to  them  about  Three  Thoufand  Souls,  by  being 
baptized  into  the  fame  Chriftian  Faith  &  Profeffion.  Be 
it  granted  then,  that  thofe  who  heard  the  Apoftle,  and 
were  converted  and  baptized,  were  only  Adult  Perfons, 
yet  among  thofe  that  were  added  to  them  the  fame  Day, 
it  is  highly  probable,  there  were  many  Infantr,orChild*rea 
in  their  Non-age,  who  were  in  the  Power,  and  at  the  Dii- 
pofal  of  theirParents,  efpecially  theChildren  of  fuchjevvs, 
as  were  proper  Natives, and  Inhabitants  oVjerufakm^  who 
might  the  fame  Bay  bring  their  Children  to  Baptifm, 
and  fo  initiate  them  into  the  Chriftian  Church  of  which 
tlieythemfelves  had  become  profefTed Members.  And  this 
S^w{t  and  Interpretation  of  the  Words  feenis  countenan- 
ced by  the  Denomination  here  ufed,  of  the  Subjedt.  It  is 
not  faid,  T!hree  Thoufand  Men  &  IVomen^  but  Three  Thou- 
fand  Souls  •,  a  Term,  that  may  very  well  include  Infants, 
and  is  often  applied  in  Scripture  to  ftgnify  every  Sex  and 
Age  of  Mankind,  when  number'd  together,  Men,  Wo- 
men, and  Children.  Let  me  cite  only  one  Text  to  this 
Purpofe  :  It  is  faid,  Gen.  46.  26.  All  the  Souls  that  came 
"Mh  Jacob  into  Egypt,  which  came  out  of  his  Loins,  befides 
Jacob's  Sons  Wives,  all  the  Souls  were  Thrcefcore  and  fix. 
Where  it  is  evident,  that  under  rlie  generalDenomination 
of  ^//  their  Soul,  their  Children  aiid  Babes  muft  be  in- 
cluded in  theReckoningj  as  wcl!  as  grown  Peribns.  And 


the 


9©  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.  III. 

the  fame  Term  here  ufed  In  the  Text  is  very  applicable 
to  the  fame  Sort  of  Perfons,  Men,  Women  andChildren  : 
And  it  is  reafonable  to  fuppofe,  that  they  might  be  the 
rather  induced  to  offer  their  Children  to  Baptifm,  from 
the  Confideration  of  the  Argument  the  Apoftle  had  ufed 
with  them,to  perfuade  them  to  embraceChriftianBaptifm, 
which  imports  a  Reafon  why  their  Children,  as  well  as 
themfelveSjOiight  to  be  baptized.  For  thePromife  is  toyou^ 
and  to  your  Children,  Which  had  ever  been  a  Reafon  with 
the  Jewifh  Church,  why  their  Children  ought  to  be 
circumcifed.  And  Areiiiis^  a  learned  and  judicious  Ex- 
pofitor,  is  of  the  fame  Opinion,  f  And  I  know  no  Rea- 
•fon  by  which  it  can  be  difproved.  But  whether  theSenfe 
I  have  given  of  theWords  of  the  facredWriter  be  receiv'd, 
or  rejeded,  yet  carrying  a  good  Appearance  of  Probabi- 
lity, for  the  Reafons  given,  fo  much  at  leaft  will  hence 
follow,  that  in  this  firll  folemn Adminiilration  of  Baptifm 
in  the  Chriftian  Church,  it  can't  be  pretended,that  there 
is  not  the  lead  Intim.ation  of  Infants  being  baptized  •,  tho' 
the  Caufe  of  P^dobaptifm  does  not  red  on  theEvidence 
of  Fa6t  in  this  firil  Adminiftration,  but  on  the  Warrant 
which  the  infpired  Apoftle  has  given  us  for  baptizing 
Infant-Children,  by  extending  the  Promife  or  Covenant 
of  Grace  to  the  Children  of  Gofpel-Believers,  and  that  as 
a  Reafon  why  they  fhould  be  baptized,  as  has  been  faid, 
and  will  more  fully  appear  hereafter. 

2.  The  Inftance  of  the  Church  in  Samaria  I  fhall  pafs 
over,  only  with  this  Remark,  that  the  Men  &  IVomen  faid 
to  be  baptized  there  by  Philip.Kdi.  8.  12.  are  theNames 
or  Denominations  of  the  feveral  Sexes,  as  much  as  to  fay, 
bothMales  ^  Females  -,  which  may  be  equally  applied  to 
Infants  and  the  Adult.  But  if  any  ftiflly  contend,  that 
only  grown  Men  and  Women  muft  be  meant,  I  think  it 
not  a  Matter  worth  contefting,  fince  nothing  is  gain'd  or 
loft  on  one  Side  or  the  otherjas  from  our  Reafoning  under 

the 

f  Probabile  eft  cum  Adaltis,  ad  JBaptlfmum  delates  quoque  fuifle  In- 
fantes, et  pueros,  de  quibus  dixi:,  pi-OiTili:oncs  illib  etiam  et  infer vire. 
j^nt.  in  Lvc, 


Chap.  III.  cf  Infant-Baptifm.  91 

the  formerHeads  may  appear.  And  let  me  obferve  here, 
that  there  feems  to  be  a  Reafon  and  Neceffity,  that  fomc 
Declaration  fhould  be  made  in  theNew-Teflamentof  the 
Mind  andWill  of  God,  that  Baptifm,  the  initiating  Seal 
under  the  Gofpel,  fhould  be  applied  to  the  Females,  fince 
theMalesonly  by  divine  Inflituticn  had  it  applied  to  them 
perfonally  under  the  Old-Teflament  in  Circumcifion. 
And  the  making  this  Declaration  mightbe  the  principal 
Defign  of  the  Holy  Ghofl  in  the  infpired  Penman's  re- 
cording this  Paflage  ;  but  there  was  no  fuch  Reafon  or 
Neceflity  with  Regard  to  the  Infants  of  the  Church,  be- 
caufe  they  ever  had  it  applied  to  them  by  the  divine 
Command,  fince  God  firfl  inflituted  an  initiating  Seal  to 
his  Covenant. 

3.  As  to  the  Church  zxPhilippi^-^t  have  very  clear  In- 
timations of  Infants  being  baptized, in  the  mention  of  two 
feveralHoufholds  baptized  there,  viz.  That  of  Lydia^znd 
that  of  the  Jailor^  A6t.  16.1^,^^.  Of  both  which  I  have 
faid  fomething  already,  and  fhall  have  Occafion  to  fpeak 
more  hereafter,  to  fhew  the  Weaknefs  &  Infufnciency  of 
Dr.G///'s  Exceptions  againfl  thefe  two  Inflances.     And 

4.  As  to  the  Inflance  of  the  Church  of  Corinth.,  which 
is  the  laflChurch  mentioned  as  baptized  •,  tho'  it  be  true, 
that  thofe  of  the  Corinthians  who  firil  co'nflitutcd  this 
Church,  were  (as  the  Reafon  of  the  Thing  requires  they 
fhould  be)  adult  Perfons,  of  whom  it  is  faid,  that  they 
hearing  theApoflle  preaching  the  Gofpel  to  them,  believed 
and  were  baptized^  A6t.  18.8.  yet  that  their  Children  alfo 
were  baptized  (tho'  it  be  not  recorded  by  Luke)  there  can 
be  but  little  Doubt5if  we  take  intoConfidcration  a  PalTage 
in  theApoflle  PauFs  firfl  Epiflle  to  xhtCcrinthians^  Chap. 
7.  14. — Elfe  were  y cur  Children  iwclean^  but  7Jow  are  they 
holy.  Where  he  determines  the  Cafe,  that  it  either  of  the 
Parents  were  a  Believer,  theirChiidren  were  not  to  be  ac- 
counted unclean.,  as  the  Heathen  and  their  Children  were 
reputed,  both  in  Scripture,  and  in  the  common  Language 
pt  the  Jevjs^  (Ezra  6.  2 1 .  A(5l.  10.28.^  beins;  without  the 
Covenant  <)f  God,  and  unfit  for  f-icrt' ;i  Ordinances  -,  but 

'    "  hcls  ; 


92         A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.  III. 

holy  ;  whether  we  underftand  the  Term  of  a  haptijmal 
Holiriefs^  as  divers  Ancients  &  Moderns  have  underftood 
it,  for  which  there  are  fohd  and  weighty  Reafons  given. 
(The  Greek  Word,  hagia^  holy^  being  commonly  rendred 
SaintSy  and  applied  to  baptized  Chriftians,  as  Chap.  1.2. 
for  none  but  fuch  could  conftitute  a  vifible  Church  :  and 
if  this  Senfe  be  admitted,we  have  then  here  a  plainScrip- 
ture  Inllance  of  Children  baptized.)  Or  whether  we  inter- 
pret it  only  of  a  Covenant-Holinefs,  fo  much»  at  lead,  is  j 
certain,  that  the  Word  fpeaks  a  facred  Relation  to  God, 
whereby  the  Children  of  Believers  are  moft  plainly  and 
exprefly  difcriminated  fromHeathens,  and  rendred  quali- 
fied Subjedsof  Baptifm,  if  it  does  not  import  their  being 
adually  baptized.  But  of  this  alfo  I  fhall  fpeak  again 
more  largely,  when  I  come  to  vindicate  the  Pafiage,  and 
.ihall  therefore  difmifs  it  at  prefent.  And  thus  much  for 
the  Evidence  of  the  Pradtice  of  Infant-Baptifm,  as  far  as 
it  can  be  made  out  from  the  Writings  of  theNew-Tefla- 
nient.     The  next  Thing  to  be  enquired  into  is, 

II.  Whether  there  be  not  undoubtedEvidence  from  the 
Teftimonies  of  the  ancient  Fathers  tranfmitted  to  us  in 
their  Writings,  that  Infant-Baptifm  conilantly  obtained 
in  the  truly  primitiveChurch.  In  order  to  theRefolution 
of  this  Enquiry,  ourAuthor  has  confined  hisExamination 
to  the  ancient  Writers  of  the  two  firfl  Centuries,  and  de- 
termines from  what  he  has  cited  out  ot  theirWritings,thaC 
there  is  no  Evidence  for  the  Pradice  of  Infant-Baptifm 
from  theirTeftimony.  But  it  is  unfair  to  exclude  or  leave 
out  the  Teftimonies  of  the  Writers  of  the  two  following 
Centuries,  who  were  not  fo  diftant  from  the  Apoftolick 
Age,  but  that  they  were  capable  of  giving  us  a  right  In- 
formation (in  a  Matter  of  fuch  publick  Notice,&  general 
Concern,  as  theAdminifbration  of  Baptifm  in  theChurch) 
what  the  Pradice  was  in  the  truly  primitiveChurch.  For 
tho'  there  be  not  wanting  fufficient  Evidence  from  the 
Writings  of  fome  of  theFathers-^of  thofe  tv/o  firft  Centu- 
ries, for  Infant-Baptifm,  yet  perhaps  the  Evidence  is  not^ 
fo  bright  and  clear  for  the  Convidion  of  thofe  v/ho  are 

difpofed 


Chap.  III.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  9^ 


difpofed  to  doubt  and  wrangle,  as  that  of  thofe  in  the 
tbird&i  fourtbCenturks  ;  who  tho'  fomewhat  more  remote 
from  the  Apoftles  Times,  yet  their  Evidence  may  be  at- 
tended with  fuch  Circumftances  of  CredibiHty,  as  to  ren- 
der it  undoubted;  that  Intant-Baptifm   obtained  in  thofe 
j  Times  ;  not  only  as  they  were  Witnefles  for  their  own 
[  Age,  as  our  Adverfaries  allow,  but  of  the  preceeding  A- 
•  ges  up  to  the  Apofl;les,of  whofe  Pradice  they  were  capa- 
ble ot  attaining  certain  Knowledge,   in  a  Matter  of  this 
'  Nature. 

j      But  let  mfirjt  confider  what  our  Author  has  to  fay  of 
I  the  two  firft  Centuries.     He  pretends  to  give  us  a  Cata- 
^  logue  of  the  Writers  of  thofe  two  Centuries,  Pa.  20,22. 
And  as  thefe  were  but  few  in  all,  fo  theirWritings  gene- 
!  rally  related  to  different  Subjeds,  fuch  as  the  Defence  of 
I  Chriftianity  againfb  the  Cavils  and  Obloquies  of  theHea- 
then  ;  theVindication  of  the  Chriftians  fi'om  their  Afper- 
fions  andCalumnies  •,  the  beating  down  the  Herefies,that: 
fprung  up  in  thofe  Times  ;  the  Comfort  &  Encourage- 
ment of  Chriftians  under  the  Sufferings  andPerfecutions 
I  they  were  almoft  conftantly  liable  to,  and  the  like ;  they 
I  fpeak  very  little  of  Baptifm,  and  lefs  of  the  Baptifm  of 
I  Infants,  which  they  touch  but  occafionally,  and  in  gene- 
ral Hints,  when  they  are  treating  on  other  Subjeds.     A 
I  Sign  there  were  no  Antipa^dobaptifts  in  thofe  Ages ;  for 
it's  probable,  if  there  had  been  fuchjthere  would  not  have 
been  fo  general  a  Silence  about  the  Controverfy  •,  fince, 
j  as  our  Adverfaries  grant,PaedobaptiilTi  began  to  be  a  ge- 
neral Pradice  in  the  third  Century  y  and  that,   without 
any  Noife  or  Stir  that  we  hear  of,but  from  one  Man,  and 
from  him  not  fo  much  in  Way  of  dired  Oppofition,  as 
in  Way  of  Advice  to  delay  the  Baptifm  of  Infants  'till 
the  Age  of  Difcretion. 

There  are  but  three  of  the  ancient  Fathers,both  of  the 
firft  and  fecond  Century,  whom  our  Author  has  cited,  as 
fpeaking  of  Baptifm  ;  and  but  one  of  them  fays  any  Thing 
to  thePurpofe,in  Relation  to  the  difpurcdPoint  of  Infant- 
Baptifm.     He  tells  us,  Mr.  Slefma  and  Mr.  Rees  have 

cited 


9+  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  Ill, 

cited  fome  PafTages  from  Barnabas  and  Hermas^  which  I 
fuppofe  may  be  to  as  little  Purpole,  as  what  he  himfeif 
has  cited  horn  Ignatius^  Pa.  21.  viz.  "  Let  yourBaptifm 
*'  remain  as  Armour,  Faith  as  an  Helmet,  Love  as  a 
*'  Spear,  Patience  as  whole  Armour."  This,  he  fays, 
*'  favoursAdult-Baptifm,fince  he  fpeaks  of  it  as  attended 
*'  with  Faith,  Love,  and  Patience."  If  he  means,  that 
the  Baptifm  which  true  Chriftians  have  received,  is  at- 
tended with  thele  Graces,  which  they  are  obliged  by  the 
Nature,  Import,  and  Defign  of  their  Baptifm,  to  be  al- 
ways furnilh'd  with,  there  is  nothing  here  laid,  but  what 
a  Pasdobaptift  Minifter  may  fay  to  a  Congregation  of 
Chriftians  baptized  in  Infancy  •,  and  fo  thefe  Words  of 
Ignatius  import  nothing  in  Favour  of  Adult-Baptifm. 
Or  if  he  underftands  his  Author 'to  intend,that  the  Act  ion, 
or  receiving  of  Baptifm,  is  accompanied  withFaith^Love 
and  Patience,  there  is  no  impartial  Eye  (I  am  perfwaded) 
that  can  difcern  any  fuch  Thing  fo  much  as  implied  in 
the  Words.  But  fuppofe,that  Adult-  Bapt'.fm  was  chiefly 
intended  in  Ignatius  his  Words,  what  can  our  Author 
infer  from  them  ?  Becaufe  in  thofe  firft  Times  of  Chri- 
flianity,greatNumbers  ofHeathenscame  intotheChriftian 
Church,  and  were  baptized  at  Adult- Age,  he  mu(l  prove, 
that  this  was  inconfiftent  with  theBaptifm  of  theirlnfants, 
after  they  had  become  Chriftians,  or  it  is  nothing  to  his 
Purpofe. 

The  next  of  the  ancientFathers  he  cites,is7r^;?^^j,who 
lived  in  the  Beginning  of  the  fecondCentury,&  wrote  the 
Book  out  ol  which  the  Citation  is  made,  fomeTime  after 
the  middle  of  it  in  his  elder  Years,  for  he  lived  to  be  a 
'Very  old  Man  ;  and  the  Pafifage  produced  is  more  to 'the 
Purpofe,  than  any  other  he  has  cited  :  But  it  is  a  plain 
Evidence  for  Infant-Baptifm,  whatever  Pains  Dr.G^/has 
taken  to  weaken  the  Credit  of  it,  and  to  darken  the  true 
Meaning.  The  PafTage  is  taken  out  of  his  fecond  Book 
agairift  UerefieSy  Chap.  39.  I  fhall  fet  it  down  at  large, 
tranllated.     Speaking  ot  Chrift  he  has  thefe  Words, 

"  Magijler  ergo  exijhns^Magipi  ^uoque  habebat  at  at  em  ^ 

"  ^c. 


Chap.  III.  cf  Infant-Baptifm.  95 

"  ^c.  Therefore  being  himfelf  a  Mafter,he  had  alfo  the 
•'  Age  of  a  Mailer,  not  difdaining,  nor  going  in  a  Way 
"  above  human  Nature,  nor  breaking  in  his  own  Perfon 
*'  the  L.aw  which  he  had  fet  for  Mankind  ;  but  fandti- 
*'  fying  every  Age  by  the  Likenefs  which  it  had  to  him- 
"  felf ;  for  he  came  to  fave  all  Perfons  byHimfelf  ;  All, 
"  I  fay,  ^i  per  eum  renafcuntur  in  Deum,  who  by  hinl 
"  are  regenerated  (born  again^  or  baptized)  unto  God  5  In- 
*'  fants,  and  little  Ones,  and  Boys,  and  young  Men,  and 
"  elder  Perfons.  Therefore  he  went  thro'  every  feveral 
"  Age  •,  and  for  Infants  he  became  an  Infant,  fandifying 
*'  Infants  ;  to  little  Ones,he  became  a  little  One,  fandli- 
"  fying  thofe  of  that  Age,  and  alfo  becoming  anExam- 
^'  pie  to  them  of  Piety,  Juftice,  and  Subjedion,"  &c. 

That  which  may  render  this  Tellim.ony  for  Infant- 
Baptifm  more  obfcure  to  vulgar  Readers  at  this  Day,  is 
their  Unacquaintednefs  with  the  Language  and  Way  of 
I  fpeaking  ufed  by  the  Ancients.     For  the  Word  Regene^ 
j  ration  was  cuflomarily  and  conllantly  ufed  by  them  for 
1  Baptifm  -,  as  thofe  who  have  been  moil  converfant  with 
i  the  ancient  Writers  of  the  Church  do  know  and  teflify  : 
i  To  regenerate ^-^^s  with  them  to  baptize^  &:  regenerated^ov 
!  born  again^was,  baptized.     Tho'  the  Words  have  not  been 
'  appropriated  to  this  Sta^t  in  the  Books  of  thefe  latter 
Ages,  yet  nothing  was  more  frequent  with  the  ancient 
Chriflian  Writers,  grounding  this  Phrafe  on  thofe  Words 
of  our  Saviour,  Joh.  3 .  5.  Except  a  Man  be  bcrn  of  Wa- 
ter^ and  of  the  Spirit,   he  cannot  enter  into  the  Kingdom  of 
God.     Which  they  generally  underftood  of  Baptifm  with 
Water,  with  the  conjoin'd  Operation  of  the  holy  Spirit 
by  the  Ordinance  of  Chrift  for  the  Purpofe  of  Regenera- 
tion.    And  in  this,and  no  other  Senfe,  can  theWords  of 
Irem^us  be  underftood,  when  he  fays,  that  Chj^iji  came  to 
\fave  all  that  are  by  him  regenerated  unto  God^QVQn  Infants^ 
and  little  Ones  ^c.  i.  e.  who  are  baptized  unto  God  the 
■  Father,  Son  &  holy  Ghoft.     Agreably  to  the  like  Phrafe 
iof  theApoftle — Hefaved  us  by  the  waffoing  of  Regeneration^ 
jTit.  5.  5.  which  Words  manifeftly  refer  to  the  wafting 

with 


96;;  A  Defence  of  the  Bmjie  Right        Chap.  III. 

with  Water  in  Baptifm,  the  inflituted  Symbol  of  Rege- 
neration.    But  whether  the  Ancients  had  a  right  Notion  ' 
or  Senfe  of  thofe  Words  of  our  Saviour,in  J^/;?.3.5  when  ' 
they  underilood  them  of  Baptifm,  it  is  not  to  our  prefent 
Purpofe  to  inquire  -,  but  that  in  Fa6l  the  Word  regene- 
rate^ or  born  again ^vi^s  ever  ufed  by  them  for  baptized,  is 
undeniable  ;  and  particularly  by  Irenaus.    Dr.  IVall  has 
obferv'd,  that  in  all  otlier  Placesof  his  Book  that  fell  ua- 
der  his  Notice,  he  ufes  the  Word  in  this  fame  Senfe,  and 
gives  a  particular  Inftance,  that  comes  home  to  our  Pur- 
pofe, in  his  thirdBook,  Ch.  19.  "  Where  he  is  producing 
*'  Teflimonies  of  Scripture  concerning  the  holySpirit,he 
*'  has  this,   Et  iterum  potefiatem  regensrationis  in  Deum 
"  demandansDifcipulis^dicebat  eis,  &c.   "And  again  when 
*'  he  gave  his  Difciples  the  Commiffion  of  regenerating 
*'  unto  Gody  he  faid  unto  them, Go,  and  teach  all  Nations 
*'  baptizing  them  in  theName  of  the  Father,  of  the  Son, 
*'  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit."     Where  the  Commiffion  of 
''  regenerating  plainly  means  the  Commiffion  of  baptiz- 
"  ing."  t  And  it  may  be  further  obferv'd,  that  thePhrafe 
of  regenerating  unto  God^  is  of  the  very  lame  Import  with 
that  he  had  ufed  in  the  torecited  Fairages,of  Infant, which 
therefore  can  mean  nothing  elfe  but  their  Baptifm.   This 
Tcflimony  of  Iren^us  is  the  more  confiderable,   and  de- 
ferves  the  greater  Regard,  fmce  he  lived  fo  near  theAge 
of  the  Apoftles,  being  born,  as  fom.e  compute  his  Age* 
before  the  Death  of   the  Apoftle  John,  or  at  leaft  very 
foon  after,  and  was  acquainted  with  Polycarp,  theDifciple, 
it  is  faid,  of  St.  John^  and  remember'd  his  Difcourfes  of 
the  Converfation  he  had  with  thatApcille  -,  and  therefore 
could  not  poffiibly  be  ignorant  of  what  was  the  Pradlicc 
of  the  Church  at  thatDay  in  Reference  to  Infant-Baptifm, 
and  mentions  it  but  tranfiently  as  aXhing  cuftomary  and 
known  in  the  primitive  Church.  This  leftimony  of  his, 
being  fo  plain  &  full  in  Favour  of  Infant  Baptifm  ;  the 
Antipaedobaptift- Writers  have  endeavoured,with  all  the 
Art  and  fnvention  they  are  Mailers  of,  to  run  it  down, 

and 

t  WalPs  Hlft.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  Pa<I.  Ch.  3.  §.  3.    *  Ibid.  §  5, 


Chap.  III.  of  Infant-Baptlfm:  ^7 

and  evade  the  Force  of  it,  as  Dr.  Gill  doth  particularly  5 
but  all  his  Evafions  are  infignificant.    Pcig.  22, 

1.  He  fays,,"  It  is  but  a  fingle  Paflage."  Anf,  The 
Evidence  is  nbt  the  worfe  for  that,  if  it  be  exprefs  &  per- 
tinent ;  but  it  is  the  more  unfufpeded,  when  theAutbor 
does  not  fet  hirnfelf,in  many  Words,to  alTert  &  prove  the 
Thing,  as  if  it  had  been  oppos'd  or  contradicted,  but  in 
treating  on  other  Subjecls,  fpeaks  of  it  occafionally  as  a 
Thing  generally  known  and  allowed. 

2.  He  fays,  "  It  depends  on  a  fingleWordjtheSignifi- 
"  cation  of  which  is  doubtful."  Anf,  It  could  not  be 
doubtful  to  the  ancient  Chriftians,  who  were  ufed  to  that 
Way  of  Speaking  •,  the  Word  regenerated^  in  the  Senfe 
before  given,  beino;  to  them  well  known  &  familiar,  fio:- 
nifying  the  fame  Thing  as  the  Word  baptized  does  to  us. 
And  does  not  ourAuthor  know,that  theMeaning  Mntent 
ot  an  whole  Sentence  or  Paragraph  is  often  determined 
by  a  lingle  Word  ?  If  in  the  Account  our  Adverfaries 
give,from  the  Writings  of  the  Ancients,  of  Adult-Bap- 
tifm,  the  fmgle  Word  cnly  might  have  been  once  found, 
in  a  Senfe  that  excludesInfanti,how  would  they  triumph  ? 
'Tis  what  they  would  have  •,  and  a  certain  boldAntips- 
dobapti  ft  Writer  (ontDanvers)  has  by  hisAnfwerers  been 
convided  of  faliifying  in  this  Matter,  by  inferting  the 
Word  only  in  his  Quotations  from  the  ancient  Writers,in 
favour  of  his  Opinion.  *  W^ho  knows  not,  that  a  fmgle 
Particle  may  fometimes  fo  fix  the  Senfe  of  an  Author,as 
thereby  to  put  an  IfTue  to  a  Difpute  ? 

3.  He  adds,  "  The  PalTage  is  only  a  Tranflationcf /- 
•'  ren^us,  and  not  expreffed  ni  his  own  original  Words.** 
Therefore  what  ?  Therefore  no  Doubt  the  TranHator 
foifted  in  thofe  Words  of  Infants  and  little  Ones  being  re- 
generated  unto  God.  But  for  what  Reafon  ?  Be  fure,  in 
Favour  of  theCaufe  of  the  PiEdobaptijfls.  But  w^hy  then 
did  not  the  Antipasdobaptifts  (if  any  fuch  there,  were  as 
our  Author  fuppofes)  corred  this  faulty  Tranflation  by 
the  Original, while  it  was  extant  ?  Why  did  not  they  ex- 

H  pofe 

f  SecDr,^r^/r8  Hill.  Part  II.  Chap.  i.  §  4,5, 


qS  a  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  III. 

pofe  the  Tranflator,as  aForger  of  Words,  &  an  Impoftor, 
and  not  fufFer  the  franflation  to  pafs  down  to  Pofterity 
uncorre6ted,rothe  greatPrejudice,  if  not  Ruin  of  their 
Caufe  ?  But  the  Truth  is,  tho'  this  PafTage  be  a  Tranfla- 
tion,  and  not  this  only  fas  our  Author  would  infinuatej 
but  the  whole  Book  f  and  all  or  mod  of  the  Works  of 
Iren^iis  now  extant,  are  but  Tranflations  from  the  Greek 
into  Latin^  yet  it  is  a  very  ancient  one,and  approved  and 
cited  by  the  Fathers,  and  thro'  allAges  tothi:.Day.  And 
it  is  but  a  poor  Evafion,io  alledge  it  is  aTranllation,with- 
out  being  able  to  produce  the  Original  to  confront  it. 

4.  He  fuggeils,that  thePaflage  is  not  genuine,and  fays, 
*'  TheChapter  trom  whence  it  is  taken,is  by  fome  learned 
*'  Men  judged  to  be  fpurious  •,  fince  it  advances  aNotion 
*'  inconfiftent  with  that  ancient  Writer,  and  notorioufly 
"  contrary  to  the  Books  of  the  Evangelifts,'*  refpeding 
Chriil's  Age.     Jnf.  If  there  have  been  fome  learnedMen 
that  have  taken  up  this  Conceit,   there  have  been  other 
learned  Men  fince,  who  have  more  throughly  ftudied  the 
Point,  who  have  refuted  it,   and  have  Ihewn  Iren^us   to 
have  l3een  confident  with  himfelf,   tho'   they  think  him 
miftaken  in  making  theYears  of  Chrift's  Age  to  be  40  or 
nigh  50.  Which  Miftake  he  might  be  led  into,  by  thofe 
Words  of  the  Jews  to  our  Saviour,  Joh.  8.  [^y.  Thou  art 
not  yet  fiftyTears  old.     But  fuchMiflakes  have  been  com- 
mon with  other  Writers  in  Point  of  Chronology, the  Ge- 
numenefs  of  whofe  Writings  have  never  for  that  Reafon 
been  denied,  orcall'd  inQiieftion.    The  only  learnedMan 
(cited  by  Dr.  Gale  *)  who  has  taken  up  this  Opinion  con- 
cerning this  Chapter  in  Iren.^us^  and  has  appeared  to  de- 
fend ityVJSisEaroniuSj  the  popifli  Annaliil :  He  indeed  fuf- 
pe6ted  that  Part  of  the  39rhChap.  that  fpeaks  of  the  Age 
of  our  Saviour,  to  be  an  Interpolation  -,  but  his  Reafons 
have  been  fufficiently  anfwered  by  other  learnedMen, both 
Popifli  and  Prorcflant.  ||     But  that  Part  of  the  Chapter 
fufpeded  to  be  fptriouSjis  at  a  confiderable  Diftance  from 

that 

*  Dr.  G^/e's  Reflea.  on  Dr.  /"/W/'s  Hift.  of  Inf.Baptirm.  p.  4.65. 
11  Pr,  ^V/'3  Det?nce.  Pa,  283. 


Chap.  III.  of  InFant-BaptifmV  99 

that  in  which  Infants  are  fpoken  of,  as  regenerated  unto 
God  ;    which  I  cannot  find  was  ever  controverted.    But  ^ 
how  does  that  Miftake  concerning  our  Saviour's   Age 
notoriotijly  contradid;  theBooks  of  theEvangelifls  ?  Where 
is  the  precifeTime  of  the  Age  of  our  Saviour  at  hisDeath 
fet  down  in  any  of  them  ?    Notwithflanding  what  is  faid 
in  the  Evangehils   concerning  Chrift's  Age,    Chronolo- 
gers,  it  is  known,  are  not  agreed  to  this  Day,  concerning 
the  exa6l  Year  either  of  his  Birth,  or  of  his  Death  ;  fome 
placing  the  Time  of  his  Death  v/ithin  a  few  Years  of  the 
Age  of  which  Irenaiis  fuppofed  him  to  be,  without  being 
charged  with  advancing  Notions  notorioufly  contrary  to 
theWritings  of  theEvangehfts  :  And  it' mull  be  confefs'd 
to  be  a  poor  Shifc,to  except  againft  a  Paflage  in  anyAu- 
thor,  of  long   Standing,  and   a  well-eftabliilied  Repu- 
tation  among   the  Learned,  (  and  fuch   has  been  this 
Book  of  Iren.-eus)  as  fpurious,  to  evade  the  Force  of  his 
Evidence  j   becaufe  if  it  be  allowed  to  be  genuine,  his 
Teftimony  will  appear  to  be  convidive.     But  after  all, 
our  Author  fufpe&ng,  as  it  feems,  all  his  Exceptions  a~ 
gainft  this  PafTage  to  w^ant  a  Foundation  •,    proceeds  to 
give  us  his  Senfe  (^Interpretation  of  it.     He  lays,P^.2  3» 
*'  The  Queflion  is,    Whether   the  Word  Renafcuntur  is 
"  to  be  rendred  horn  again^  which  is  the  literal  Senfe  of 
"  the  Word, or  haptifed''     But  the  literalSenfe  of  Words 
is  not  always  in  Authors  the  proper  one,  but  fometimes 
the  Figurative  ;  and  it  is  known,  that  in  the  Ufe  of  the 
ancient  Chriilians,  ih^'^ovdi  regenerated  or  born  again,  is 
conftantly  appropriated  to  fignity  baptized.   He  hys^ihid. 
''  That  the  true  Senfe  of  Irenaus  feems  to  be,  that  Chrift 
''  came  to  fave  all  that  are  regenerated  by  his  Grace  and 
"  Spirit."    But  this  is  not  excluded,  but  comprehended 
in  Baptifm  ;  tho'  it  be  not  the  whole  of  what  is  intended 
by  Chriilian  Baptifm.     Does  he  not  know,  that  the  Sa- 
crament of  Baptifm  confifts  of  an  outv/ard  Sign,    and  a 
fpiritual  Myftery  fignified  .^     It  is  not  the  bare  outward 
Sign,  the  wafhing'the  Body  with  Water,    which  is   the 
Chriftian  Ordinance  of  Baptifm  5   but  as  ic  relates  to  the 

H  2  Tirno 


100  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  III. 

Thing  fignified,  which  is  Regeneration  by  the  Spirit :  If 
we  fay  otherwife,  we  deftroy  the  Nature  of  it  as  a  Sign. 
But  to  fay,  that  Chrift  came  to  fave  all  that  are  regenera- 
ted by  his  Spirit,  exclufive  of  the  outward  Sign,  or  the 
Sacramental  wafliing  with  Water,  is  to  put  afunder  what 
God  would  have  joined  together  in  thelnftitution*.  Water 
and  the  Spirit  being  joined  together  as  theCaufe  &Means 
of  Regeneration,  or  of  our  new  Birth  (in  thofe  Words  of 
our  Saviour,  Joh.  3  5.  Except  a  Man  be  horn  of  Water  and 
of  theSpirit  &c.)  the  Spirit  as  the  principal  efficientCaufe, 
and  v/afhing  with  Water,  as  the  outward  Sign,  or  infti- 
tutedMeans  of  the  Spirit's  Influence.  AndRegeneration 
by  the  Spirit  being  the  mofl  confiderable  Part  of  Bap- 
tifm,  the  whole  Sacrament  took  its  Denomination  thence 
with  the  ancientChriftianSjas  hath  been  obferved.  NoMan 
can  deny  theUfeot  the  Word  in  thisSenfe  by  thofe  ancient 
Writers  of  the  Church,  but  either  for  want  of  Knowlege, 
or  for  want  of  Honcily  •,  the  former  I  fliall  not  impute  to 
ourAuthorjfor  I  believe  he  knows  better-,  &  as  for  the  latter, 
the  want  of  Honefty,  I  fhall  only  refer  him  to  the  next 
PafTagc  which  he  has  cice4  out  of  Jifjlin  Martyr^  to  con- 
vince him  of  his  Partiality  (on  which  I  am  prefently  to 
make  fomeRemarks)  in  which  PafTage  the  Words  Regene- 
ration^ and  Regenerated^  are  ufed  no  lefs  than  threeTimes 
in  one  Ihort  Sentence,  for  Baptifm^  and  baptized.  The 
W^ords  of  thatSentence  are, —  "  And  they  are  regenerated 
*'  in  the  fame  Way  of  Regeneration  as  we  have  been  re- 
*'  generated,  for  they  are  then  wafhed  with  Water  in  the 
*'  Name  of  the  Father  &c."  Thefe  Words  ("becaufe  he 
thinks,  they  favour  Adulr-Baptifm)  muft  be  taken  for 
granted  without  more  260x0  mQau  Baptifm^or  their  being 
baptized^  as  indeed  they  do,  tho'  Ji^ftin  does  not  once  ex- 
prefiy  mention  Baptifm  in  that  whole  Paragraph.  But 
when  the  fame  Word  is  ufed  in  Jrenietis yhtCTnuk  it  makes 
for  Infant-Baptifm,  mufl  not  fignify  their  being  baptized^ 
but  only  the  Work  of  the  Spirit  &  Grace  of  Chriil  in  their 
Regeneration,  What  is  Partiality  in  a' Writer,  or  what  is 
sbufing  of  the  Reader,  if  this  be  not  ? 

And 


Chap.  III.  ef  Infant-Baptifm.  iqi 

And  now,  as  if  he  had  done  the  Burinefs  with  Ircnaus 
his  Teftimony,  he  begins  to  infult  the  Author  of  the  Dia- 
logue, in  an  ironical  Exclamation,/*^.  23.  "  This  is  all 
*'  the  Evidence,  the  undoubted  Evidence  of  Infant- Bap- 
*'  tifiT),  from  the  Fathers  of  the  two  firfl  Centuries." 
Anf.  This  is  good  Evidence  to  an  honeft  Mind,  tho'  not 
all  the  EvidencCj'hat  might  be  produced  from  the  Fathers 
even  of  the  two  firftCenturies ;  yet  it  is  as  good  &  clear  an 
Evidence,as  mayreafonablybeexpeded  from  the  fewWri- 
ters  of  thofe  Centuries.  He  is  in  hade,  I  perceive,  for  his 
Triumph,  tho'  rais'd  on  a  poor  Foundation  :  otherwife, 
if  he  would  wait  a  while,  there  are  more  Evidences  flili 
behind,  to  be  produced  from  the  Teflimonies  of  the  Fa- 
thers of  the  third  Century,  ("which  he  has  unfairly  exclud- 
ed,becaufe  elfe  they  would  have  fpoiled  hisTriumphJand 
from  thdfe  Teflimonies,  if  I  mi  flake  not,  an  undoubted 
Evidence  may  be  made  gut,  of  Infant-Baptifm  obtaining 
in  the  truly  primitive  Church.  And  it  the  Evidence 
produc'd  from  Iren^us  be  doubtful,  to  a  Man  that  has  a 
mind  to  cavil,  yet  it  is  certainly  better  than  any  ourAntl- 
psedobaptifls  are  able  to  produce  inPavour  of  theirCaufe ; 
for  they  cannot  bring  fo  much  as  one  Inflance,  from  any 
authentick  Teflimony  of  the  Ancients,  of  a  Perfon  bap- 
tized at  adult  Age,  who  was  born  of  baptized  Parcnts^at 
lead  not  in  the  two  firft  Centuries.  Dr.Gill  thinks,  *'lt  h 
"  eafy  to  producePafTages  out  of  thofe  ancientWriters  la 
"  Favour  of  Believers  Baptifm."  So  think  I  too,  both 
from  the  Scripture,  and  from  the  Fathers  •,  but  they  ai-e 
nothing  at  all  to  his  Purpofe,  as  I  Hie  wed  under  the 
Scripture-Inftances  of  Adult- Baptifm. 

However,  there  is  one  more  of  the  ancient  Writers 
(arrd  it  is  the  third  and  laflof«theFathersof  the  two  firft 
Centuries,  he  has  thought  fit  to  cite)  and  that  is  Juftm 
Martyr^  whofe  Teflimony  he  alledges  in  Favour,  hefup- 
pofes,  of  Adult-Baptifm  •,  it  is  that  which  I  now  juil  re- 
ier'd  to.  The  Paffage  is  taken  out  of  Jujiinh  Apology 
for  the  Chriitians  of  that  Age^rcfented  to  the  Ernpei-ov 
Antonimu  Fius^    and  the  Senate  of  KortK^,     I  iJuilffet  It 

H  3        '         '  doWa 


102  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  III. 

clown  at  large,  fo  far  as  it  relates  to  the  prefent  Subjed. 
Ic  is  as  follows, 

"  As  many  as  are  perfuaded  and  do  believe  theThings 
"  taught  and  faid  by  us  to  be  true,  and  do  promife  to 
*'  live  according  to  them,  are  inftru6ted  to  pray  and  afk 
*'•  of  God,  with  rafting,  theForgivenefs  of  their  paftSins, 
''  we  praying  and  failing  together  with  them,  and  then 
"  they  are  brought  by  us  where  there  is  Water,  and  they 
"  are  regenerated  in  the  fame  Way  of  Regeneration^  as  we 
"  have  been  regenerated  j  for  they  are  then  wafhed  in 
«•  Water,  in  the  Name  of  the  Father  and  Lord 
"  God  of  all,  and  in  the  Name  of  our  Saviour  Je- 
"  fus  Chrift,  and  of  the  holy  Spirit "  This  PafTage  is 
made  much  Account  of  by  the  AnripasdobaptiftWriters, 
and  is  often  quoted  by  them  as  if  it  were  defignedly  writ- 
ten as  an  Apology  for  them,  and  a  full  Juftification  of 
theirCaufe  :  whereas  there  is  not  aWord  in  it  that  makes 
for  their  peculiar  Practice  ;  for  tho'  it  be  undoubted,  that 
Juftin  here  fpeaks  of  the  Baptifm  of  the  Adult,  yet  it  is 
alfo  unqueftionable,that  thofe  adult Perfons  fpoken  of  as 
regenerated,  orbaptiz'd,were  fuch  as  were  converted  from 
Ileathenifm  to  Chriftianity.  For  firjl^  the  Baptifms.of 
Converts  from  Heathenifm  were  moil  frequent  in  that 
Age  ;  the  Heathens  being  brought  by  the  Preaching  of 
the  Gofpel  in  the  greateil  Numbers  into  the  Church  of 
Chrift,  in  the  two  or  three  firil  Centuries.  Dr.  PFallfup- 
pofes  (and  it  is  no  improbable  Conje6lureJ  "  that  the 
'«  Apoilles  at  their  Death  left  the  World  in  fuch  a  State, 
'•'  as  that  there  was  probably  an  Hundred  Heathens  left 
"  for  one  Chriilian,  even  in  the  Roman  Empire,  where 
«^  they  fpent  moft  of  their  Pains ;  but  at  theEnd  of  three 
"  or  four  Hundred  Years  Inhere  were  probably  tenChriili- 
"  ans  for  onelleathen."  '*'  Now  when  theWorld was be- 
comingChrillian,  aid  fuchlMulftudes  were  daily  brought 
over  from  Paganifm  toChriilianity,  the  Baptifms  of  adult 
Perfons  muft  be  fuppofedto  be  more  common, and  greatly 
to  exceed  in  Number  the  Baptifms  of  the  Children  of 

ChriftianSj 

*  //-WA  Hiil.  Part  11.  Chap.  i.  §  z. 


Chap.  III.  <?/ Infant- Baptlfm.  30| 

Chriflians,  whether  we  fuppofe  them  baptiz'd  in  Inftincy, 
oratAdult- Age.    There  is  noPsdobaptifl  but  what  in  the 
Age&Circumftances  in whichyz^/?/;^  lived  (being  about  to 
inform  Heathens  &  Strangers  to  the  Chrillian  Frofeflion 
concerning  the  Way  &  Manner  of  admitting  Profelytes 
into  the  Chrillian  Church)  would  have  given  without  all 
Scruple  the  fameAccount  that  Juftin  doth  here.  Secondly ^ 
The  Mention  of  thefe  Adult-Baptifms  was      .  fuitable 
to  the  Defign  of  Jujlinh  Apology  ;  which  was  to  vindi- 
cate the  Chriflians  of  thofe  Times  from  the  vile  &  odious 
Afperfions  caft  on  them  by  their  Heathen  Adverfaries, 
by  whom  they  were  reprefented  as  a  wicked  Confederacy, , 
and  as  a  Body  of  Men  ill-affeded  to  C^ejar  and  the  Roma^i 
Empire,  nourifhing  Principles  of  Difloyalty  and  Sedi- 
tion jn  their  Society,  on  Purpofe  to  fbir  up  the  Heathen  . 
Powers  to  perfecute,  and  extirpate  them.    And  this  Suf- 
picion  might  be  augmented  by  the  great  Numbers  of  the 
Headien  Subjeifls  of  the  Empire  joining  themfelves  to 
theirCommunity, which  might  occafion  their  being look'd 
upon  as  dangerous  to  the  Roman  Government.  And  no- 
thing could  conduce  more  effedlually  to  wipe  off  this  vile 
Calumny,  and  remove  all  Grounds  of  Sufpicion,  than  the 
giving  a  juft  and  plain  Account  of  the  Manner  of  their 
admitting  Profelytes  from  among  the  Heathen  ;  that  no 
fa6li6us  Principles  were  inftilled  into  them,  but  only  the 
Truths  and  Precepts  of  the  Gofpel  of  Chrifl,  calculated 
for  the  Benefit  of  Mankind  and  of  Society  *,  that  noRites 
were  made  Ufe  of  in  their  AdmilTion,  but  what  were  in- 
nocent, and  favoured  of  Piety,  obliging  them  to  Rever- 
ence and  Devotion  to  the  great  God  &  Lord  of  all,  which 
being  rightly  underftood  could  give  no  Umbrage  to  the 
Government,  nay,  which  could  not  but  be  juilified  by  the 
Principles  of  the  natural  Law  remaining  inHeathenMen. 
And  therefore  it  was  with  great  Wifdom  and  Propriety 
that  Juftin  being  about  to  give  fomei^ccount  of  Chrillian 
Baptiim,  chofe  to  exemplify  it  in  adult  Converts  from 
Heathenifm.     We  can't  fuppofe  theHevithen  to  be  under 
any  Sufpicion  or  Concern  about  the  Infants  of  ChriftianSi, 

H  4  "    "    .    hovi 


104-  'A  Defence  cf  the  Bhhie  Right       Chap.  IIL 

how  they  difpos'd  of  them,or  what  Share  they  had  in  their 
RehgioQ  \  they  might  reafonabJy  conclude, that  they  ini- 
tiated them  into  the  fameReligion  which  they  themfelves 
profefs'd.  Suppofing  therefore  the  baptizing  of  Infants  to 
have  been  then  a  general  Pradlice,  yet  it  had  been  imper- 
tinent to  the  Purpofe  of  the  Apologiftjin  explaining  this 
Chrifbian  Rite  toHeathens,  to  have  produc'd  the  Inftan- 
ces  of  fuch  Baptifms.  Nor  was  it  his  Defign,to  open  and 
declare  all  the  Myfteries  of  the  Chriftian  Religion  to  an 
Heathen  Emperour ;  but  only  to  vindicate  the  Chriftians 
in  thofe  Points  in  which  they  were  moft  liable  to  the  ma- 
licious Cenfures  of  their  Pagan  Adverfaries.  Now  what 
can  be  gathered  hence  to  the  Advantage  of  the  Caufe  of 
Antipaedobaptifm  ?  Is  there  the  leaft  Proof,  or  indeed 
Probability,  that  the  Inftances  ot  Adult-Baptifm  refer'd 
to  by  Jujlm^  were  of  any  Children  of  Chriifian  Parents, 
who  had  been  denied  Baprifm  in  Inlancy  ?  It  not,  and  it 
is  certain  there  is  not,  then  this  Citation  from  that  ancient 
Writer,  as  it  affords  noArgument  or  Evidence  for  Infant- 
Baptifm,  fo  it  makes  nothing  againft  it,  or  for  theCaufe 
of  our  Adverfaries. 

Our  Author  proceeds  to  touch  on  the  third  Century, 
but  flops  fliort,  and  fays, P.  24,  "As  to  the  third  Centuryy 
"  it  will  be  allow'd  that  it  (i.  e,  Infant-BaptifmJ  was 
*'  fpoken  of  in  it.'*  A  poor  ConcefTion  !  If  he  had  been 
ingenuous  and  honeft,  he  fhou'd  have  faid,  it  was  abun- 
dantly confirmed  by  the  Teftimonies  of  moft  of  the  an- 
cient Writers  in  that  Century,  not  only  as  the  common 
Pradiceof  the  Church  in  their  Time,  but  as  what  had 
been  the  conftant  Uiage  from  the  Days  of  the  Apoftles.. 
But  it  feems,  the  Force  cf  Truth  has,  as  yet,  extorted  no 
more  from  him,  than  that  it  was  xh^tn  fpoken  of:  But  left 
we  Ihou'd  Jay  any  Weight  even  on  this  poor  ConcefTion, 
he  has  taken  Care  to  explain  and  limit  it  in  fuch  a  Man- 
iier  that  it  might  not  ferve  for  our  Turn.  And  that  it 
might  not  offend  his  own  Party,  there  are  two  Things  he 
has  to  fay  to  qualify  it  to  their  Guft.  Firjly  that  it  did 
^ur  begin  to  be  fpoken  of  in  the  third  Century.  Secondly y 

that 


Chap.  III.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  105 

that  the  Man  that  firfl  fpoke  of  it,  fpoke  againft  it.  For 
fays  he,  ibid.  "  As  foon  as  it  was  mention'd,  it  was  op- 
*'  pofed  •,  and  the  very  firflMan  that  mentions  it,  fpeaks 
"  againft  it,  namely  'T'ertullian''  So  that  according  to  this 
Writer,  Infant- Baptiliii  was  never  fpokenof  till  the  third 
Century  *,  aSpecimen  of  the  Gentleman's  highConfidencc 
(when  he  would  have  his  bold  AfTertions  pafs  for  Argu- 
ment) without  the  leaftFoundation  of  Truth  that  appears. 
But  how  came  Infant-Baptifm  to  be  oppos'd  before  it  was 
fpoken  of  ?  Or  why  did  Tertullian^'iiht  was  the  firftMan 
that  mention'd  it,  fpeak  againft  it  ?  Did  he  fight  with  his 
own  Shadow  ? — But  that  we  may  know  what  Weight  is 
to  be  laid  on  the  TeftiiTiony  of  this  ancient  Father,  let 
us  confider  his  Words  with  fome  brief  Obfervations  on 
them.  His  Words  are  cited  at  length  by  Dr.  fFall^  in  his 
Hiltory  of  Infant-Baptifm  :*  they  are  in  hisBook  de  bap- 
tifmo^  Cap.  1 8.  I  fhall  tranfcribe  fo  much  of  them  as  more 
immediately  relates  to  the  Subjed  in  Debate,  which  are 
as  follows. 

—  "  According  to  every  One's  Condition,  andDifpo- 
"  fition,  and  alio  their  Age,  the  delaying  of  Baptifm  is 
"  more  profitable,  efpecially  in  the  Cafe  of  HttleChildren. 
*'  For  what'  Need  is  there"  (it  is  added  in  fome  more  an- 
cient Editions,  as  Dr.  /F^// obferves,  tadefs  in  Cafe  of  Ne- 
ceffity)  "  that  the  ('6^/)^wy^rj^God-farhers  fhould  be  brought 
*'  into  Danger  .^  becaufe  they  may  either  fail  of  their 
"  Promifes  by  Death,  or  they  may  be  miftaken  by  a 
*'  Child's  proving  of  a  wicked  Difpofition.  Our  Lord 
*'  fays  indeed,  Do  not  forbid  them  to  come  unto  me,  There- 
*'  fore  let  them  come  when  they  are  grown  up.  Let  them 
^'  come  when  they  underftand  \  when  they  are  inftruded 
*'  whither  {for  what  End)  it  is  that  they  come  •,  let  them 
"  be  madeChriilians  when  they  can  know  Chrift  :  what 
"  need  their  guiklefs  (innocent)  Age  make  fuch  Hafte  to 
*'  the  Forgivenefs  of  Sins  ? —  For  no  lefs  Reafon,unmar- 
'^  ried  Perfons  ought  to  be  (delayed)  kept  off,  who  are 
^'  likely  to  come  into  Temptation^  as  welhhofe  (///F/r- 

ginity) 

J  Part  I.    C^.3^.  4.  §  ?.  . 


jo6  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  III. 

"  ginity)  that  never  were  Married,   as  thofe  in  Widow- 
*'  hoodjfor  being  without  theirPartners,  until  they  either 

*'  Marry ^  or  be  confirmed  /;;  Continence 

Let  me  here  obferve  a  few  Things, 

1.  Of  Tertullian  himfelf,  who  (tho'  a  learnedMan, and 
by  his  Writings  did  good  Service  to  theCaufe  of  Chrifli- 
aiiity)  was  yet  noted  by  theAncients  &Moderns  that  have 
read  his  Works,  for  a  Man  incUn'd  to  fmgular  and  odd 
Fancies,  and  who  held  divers  ftrange  and  heterodox  O- ; 
pinions,  and  in  his  latter  Days. fell  into  the  Herefyofthei 
Montanifts^  which  was  had  in  great  Deteftation  in  the! 
primitiveChurch  ;  whereby  he  loil  muchof  hisReputation 
with  the  Church  in  following  Ages ;  that  his  Judgment; 
or  Opinion  was  never  accounted  of  any  great  Authority ; 
or  Weight  for  deciding  Controverfies  in  Religion. 

2.  That  he  was  a  Man  addided  to  flrange  and  odd 
Opinions,  appears  from  feveral  Inftances  in  the  Pallage: 
cited,  befides  that  which  relates  to  Infants  Baptifm  ;  luch 
as  his  Expofition  of  our  Saviour's  Words,  Forbid  not  little 
Children  to  come  unto  me^  that  is,   fays  he.  Let  them  come 
%vhen  they  are  grown  up — when  they  under sJand,  &c.  which  i 
is.  a  Senfe  quite  contrary  to   that  of  our  Saviour,  who  \ 
plainly  means  thofe  little  Children   which  were  bro't  to 
him  in  Arms,  and  others  of  the  like  Age  ;  otherwife  his 
Words  could  not  be  underflood  as  correcting  a  Fault  in 
hisDifciples  for  rebuking  them  :  They  would  have  never 
rebuked  tliem,   if  they  came  to  Chrift  when  they  v/ere 
g;own  up  ;  yet  thisExample  of  theDifciples,  thus  blam- 
ed and  correited  by  thefe  Words  of  our  Saviour,  is  foi 
lowed  by  Tertullian  in  giving  the  Senfe  of  them.     Ano-: 
ther  odd  ExprefTion  he  has,  when  he  calls  the  Age  of  In- 
fants,  their  innocent  or  guiitlefs  Jge^  which  he  gives  as  a 
Reafon  why  they  have  no  Need  to  make  hatle  to  Baptifm 
for  the  Forgivenefs  of  Sins  -,  yet  in  other  Parts  of  his 
Works,  he  plainly  confefTes  the  original  Defilement  and 
Sinfulnefs  of  Man's  Nature  ;  as  in  his  Book  de  Anirna^  he 
has  thefe  W"ords,  "  Every  Soul  is  reckon'd  as  in  Adam 
''  fo  longjtiil  it  be  a-new  enroU'd  in  Chrifl";  and  fo  long 

"  unclean. 


Chap.  IIL  ef  Infant-Baptifm.-  107 

«'  unclean,till  it  be  foenroirdi&rinful,becaufe  unclean"— 
and  more  to  thatPurpofe.  Which  naturalDefilement  was 
always  improv'd  as  a  Reafon  by  the  Ancients  for  the 
Baptifm  ot  Infants.  Another  Inftance  as  odd  and  unac- 
countable as  any,  is  his  Advice  to  Virgins"  and  Widows 
to  delay  their  Baptifm,  till  they  are  paft  the  Danger  of 
Temptation  thro'  Lull,  either  till  they  were  Married,or 
confirmed  in  Continence  :  for  fear,  I  fuppofe,  of  falling 
into  Sins  afterwards.  (Not  that  Sins  after  Baptifm  were 
thought  unpardonable,  but  next  to  unpardonable,  the 
Guilt  andStain  whereof  being  with  greatDifficulty  wafhed 
out)  StrangeAdvice  to  be  given  by  one  of  the  facred  Or- 
der, which  is  no  more  agreable  to  ourAdverfaries  in  this 
Controverfy,  than  to  us  ;  fuch  as  many  wicked  Men  are 
apt  to  improve  for  delaying  their  Converfion  to  God  I 
and  to  advife  any  adult  unbaptiz'd  Perfons  to  delay  their 
Baptifm  till  they  are  out  of  the  Danger  of  Temptations, 
is  in  Effed  to  advife  them  to  delay  theirConverfion  ;  for 
the  baptifmal  Dedication  to  God  is  the  compleating  A61 
of  Chriftian  Converfion.  Whence  it  appears  how  little 
iWeight  is  to  be  laid  on  this  Father's  Judgment. 

3.  If  we  confider  the  above-cited  PaiTage,  not  only  as 

it  declares  what  was  the  Advice  or  Judgment  ofTertulliaft 

about  the  baptizing  of  Infants,  but  as  it  relates  to  thePra- 

ftice  of  the  Church  at  that  Day,  it  appears  to  be  rather  a 

Teftimony  in  Favour  of  P^dobaptifm,'  than  againft  it. 

The  Subjedl  of  our  prefent  Enquiry  is  not,  what  this  or 

the  other  Father's  Judgment  or  Opinion  was  in  the  Cafe, 

but  what  the  common  Pradice  of  the  Church  was  in  that 

Age  withReference  to  the  baptizing  ofChildren  •,  and  tho' 

Tertulian  has  declar'd  his  particular  Judgment  againft  ir, 

and  pleads  for  its  Delay  till  riper  Years  •,  yet  he  has  de- 

nliver'd  it  in  fuch  a  Manner  as  plainly  fuppofes  it  to  have 

ii|been  in  common  Ufe.  He  is  the  firll  Man  (fays  ouriVu- 

dlthor)  that  meniions  Infant-Baptifm,  and  /peaks  agairji  it, 

lejWhat  does  he  infer  thence  ?  Therefore  it  had  not  come 

[ii,^nto  Ufe  in  the  Church  before  hisTime  !   So  he  is  the  firfl 

rManj  Ifuppole,  that  mentions  theBaptifm  cfunm,arried 

People, 


loS        [A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.  HI. 

People,  Virgins  and  Widows,  and  fpeaks  againft  it,  and 
as  earncftly  pleads  for  its  Delay  till  theDanger  of  Temp- 
tation is  pa{l,tillMarriage  or  the  abatement  of  Luft.  Will 
it  thence  follow,  that  theBaptifm  of  fuch  unmarriedPeo- 
ple  did  not  obtain  in  the  Church  till  Tertullian^s  Time  ? 
Or  that  it  firft  began  then  to  be  in  Ule  ?  Our  Author 
may  as  reafonably  infer  the  latter  as  the  former.  There 
is  not  a  Word  in  Tertullian  intimating  that  the  Pradlice 
of  Infant-Baptifm  did  hot  obtain  in  the  Church  before 
his  Time.  But  the  very  Words  in  which  he  gives  his  O- 
pinion  againft  it,  do  plainly  enough  imply  it  to  have  been 
a  common  Pra6lice.  For  why  fhould  he  plead  for  the  de- 
laying the  Baptifm  of  little  Children  as  more  profitable, 
if  no  fuchThing  had  been  in  Ufe  P  And  his  fpeaking  of 
SponforSf  or  God-fathers,{hews  there  had  been  fome  fuch 
Cuftom.  And  hisWordsj-o;^^/  need  their  innocent  Age  make 
fuchhafietotheForgivenefs  of  Sins?  (i.e.inBaptifm)  plainly 
luppofe  it  to  have  been  aThing  cuflomary  in  theChurch, 
to  bringlnfants  quickly  after  theirBirth  toBaptifm.  But 

4.  After  all,  what  is  itth^iT'ertullian  has  fpoken,  againfl 
the  baptizing  of  Infants  ?  'Tis  true,  he  has  given  it  as 
his  Judgment,that  it  is  more  profitable  that  theirBaptifm 
fliould  be  defer'd  till  they  come  to  riper  Years,  to  be  able 
to  underftand  fomething  of  the  Nature  and  Defign  of  it. 
But  he  is  far  from  going  to  the  Heights  of  our  prefent 
Antipgedobaptifts  •,  he  does  not  condemn  it  as  unlawful, 
as  they  do,  and  as  he  would  have  done  if  it  was  hut  then$ 
brought  into  theChurch,  as  an  Innovation  contrary  to  the 
Rule  of  Scripture,  or  without  the  Approbation  or  Direc- 
tion of  theApoftles.  On  the  contrary,  he  allows  it  inCafe 
of  Necefllty,  i.  e.  in  Danger  of  Death.  And  do  not  moft 
Children  fomeTime  or  other  in  their  weak  infantileState 
become  obnoxious  to  fuch  aNecelTity  ?  So  that  he  would 
have  been  as  far  from  elleeming  their  Baptifm  void  and 
null,orfro]n  thinking  it  needed  to  be  repcated,when  it  had 
been  once  adminiftred,  as  we  may  fuppofe  he  wou'd  have 
been  from  condemning  the  Baptifm  of  thofe  that  are  un- 
married, or  requiring  a  Repetition  of  it,  tho'  he  equally 

fpeaks 


Chap.  III.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  109 

fpeaks  againft  it,  and  fays  it  ought  to  be  delayed,  ISlon 
mnori  deCaufa^^ox  no  lefsReafon  than  that  of  Intants.  So 
that  upon  the  whole,  our  Antipaedobapcifls  are  but  little 
befriended  by  this  Teflimony  of  Tertullian^  and  have  but 
little  Reafon  to  glory  in  it :  Tho'  (whereas  Dr.  Gill  tells 
us,  he  was  the  firft  Man  that  mentioninglnfant-Baptifni 
fpoke  againft  it,  he  Ihould  have  laid, that)  he  was  the  only 
Man  in  all  Antiquity,of  thofe  whofe  Writings  are  come 
down  to  us,  who  has  faid  any  Thing  againft  it. 

But  he  goes  on  to  fay,  P.  24.  "  The  Truth  of  theMat- 
*'  ter  is,  that  Infant- Baptifm  was  moved  for  in  the  thii'd 
**"  Century  ;  got  Footing  &  Eftablifhment  in  ih^  fourth 
*'  and  fifth  ;  and  fo  prevail'd  until  the  Time  of  the  Re- 
*'  formation."  This  is  fo  far  from  being  the  Truth  of  the 
Matter,  that  it  is  a  manifeft  difguifing  of  the  Truth,  and 
a  meer  Figment  of  the  Brain,  deftituteof  the  Jeaft  Sha- 
dow of  Proof  that  can  be  produced.  But  fmce  he  allows 
thePasdobaptifts  no  more  Evidence  from  the  3dCentury, 
than  thatlntant-Baptifm  began  then  to  h^fpoken  of  ;  and 
be  fure  he  would  produce  no  more  than  what  he  thouo-ht 
made  for  hisCaufe,(all  theAuthors  he  has  cited,or  refer'd 
to,I  have  examin'd,&  fhewed  how  littleAdvantage  he  has 
gained  by  them)  it  is  therefore  meet,and  proper,and  what 
may  reafonably  be  expeded,  that  to  undeceive  theReader 
I  Hiould  produce  theTeftimonies  of  the  ancientFathers  in 
theBehalfoflnfant-Baptlfmjwhich  being  laid  together, will 
(I  perfuade  myfelf )  amount  to  an  undoubtedEvidence  to 
every  unprejudic'd  Mind,  that  Infanr-Bapcifm  generally 
cbtairCd  in  the  truly  primitive  Church. 

And  for  this  End,  I  might  refer  the  Englifb  Reader  to 
a  Book  I  have  had  Occafion  to  cite  feveralTimes  already, 
entitled,  The  Hiflory  of  Infant -Baptifm^  written  by  Dr. 
Wall^who  has  with  great  Induftry  made  a  faithfulCollec- 
tion  of  the  feveral  Paftages  in  the  ancient  Fathers  of  tlic 
four  firft  Centuries,  that  make  for,or  againft  Infant  Bap- 
tifm. And  becaufe  the  Book  is  fcarce  in  thefe  Parts,and 
but  in  very  few  Hands,  I  ftiall  take  leave  to  tranfcribe  a 
few  of  thefe  Paftages,  (out  of  the  great  Numbers  cited) 

that 


i  lo         A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.  Ill 

that  are  plain  &  pertinent  to  the  Purpofe^and  may  fuiTiCQ 
to  give  full  Satisiadion  to  the  Reader  •,  tho  forBrevity's 
Sake  I  fhall  leave  out  the  originalWords  of  theAuthors, 
which  are  fet  down  at  large  by  the  foremention'd  Writer.  *  ^' 
Several  of  the  Ancients  of  the  firft  and  fecond  Century, 
befides  Irenaus^  are  brought  in  giving  their  Suffrage  to 
Infant-Baptifm  by  more  remote  Hints.  Particularly, 
^ufiin  Martyr  fpeaks  of  Baptifm  being  to  us  Chriftians  in- 
ftead  of  Circumcifion  -f  |in  his  Dialogue  with  Trypho)  m 
thele  Words,  "We  alfo  who  by  him  have  had  Accefs  to 
*'  Godjhave  not  receivedthis  carnalCircumcifion,but  the 
*'  fpiritualCircumcifion,  yNliichEnoch  and  thofe  like  him 
*«  have  obferved.  And  we  have  received  it  by  Baptifm, 
*^  by  theMercy  of  God5becaufe  we  were  Sinners  ;  and  it 
*'  is  enjoin'd  to  allPerlbns  to  receive  it  by  thefameWay." 
In  the  fame  Senfe  the  ancient  Fathers  generally  fpake  of 
Baptifm,  as  the  fpiritual  Circumcifion^  fucceeding  to  us 
Chriftians  in  the  Room  of  the  carnal  Circumcifion^  agrea- 
bly  to  the  Words  of  the  Apoftle  Faul^  Col.  2.  11,  12. 
From  whence  the  Confcquence  is  eafy  to  be  prov'd,  that 
Baptifm  which  is  the  Chriftian  Circumcifion,  ought  to 
be  apply'd  to  Infants,  as  Circumcifion  in  the  Flcfh  was  to 
theliiiants  of  the  Jews.  But  to  come  to  the  nextCentury  — 
The  firil  1  fliail  mention  isOn^^-^jWho  flourilhed  in  the 
Beginning  of  the  third  Century,  and  was  for  fome  Time 

Contemporary 

*  7/.  B.  Tho'  tte  few  following  Quotations  from  the  Fathers  are  taken 
at  fecond  Hand,  yet  we  may  be  fecure  as  to  the  Fidelity,  and  Im- 
partiality of  the  learned  Writer  mention'd,  from  whom  I  have  taken 
them.  -And  I  had  lels  Need  to  have  Recourfe  to  the  original  Au- 
thors (as  I  defjgn'd  to  have  done  before  the  Publication  of  thefe  Pa- 
pers, not  having  the  Fathers  by  me  at  my  firft  Writing)  fmce  I  find 
Mr.  14  hi/tony  who  was  well  vers'd  in  the  Fathers  of  the  four  firft 
Centuries,  and  after  he  had  embrac'd  the  Communion  of  the  Bap- 
tifts,  in  his  Addrefs  to  that  People,  declaring  to  them,  that  Dr.  M^airs 
Hiftory  oi  In/ant -Baptifm,  "  as  to  theFafts,"  appeared  to  him,  "raoft 
**  accurately  done,  and  might  be  depended  on  by  theBaptifts  thera- 
•*  feives."  Mem.  of  his  Life.  Part.  11.  P.  461.  So  that  the  Reader  has 
no  Cauie  to  fufpefl,  that  the  Truth  or  Genuinencfs  of  the  faid  Quo- 
tations will  be  contefted  by  any  of  our  Adverfarics. 

f  Hift.  cf  lafant-Baptifm,  Part  I.  Ch.  2,  \  z, 


Chap.  III.  <?/ Infant-Baptifm.  m 

Contemporary  witWertuUian.  He  plainly  declareslnfant- 
Baptifm  to  have  been  ufed  in  the  Church  (in  his  Homily  8. 
on  Lev.  Chap.  12.)  where  he  haththefe  Words,*  '^  Hear 
"  X)<^i;/J  Ipeaking,  I  was  ^{'dysht^  conceive  din  Iniquity  ^and 
"  inSin  did  my  Mot  her  bring  me  forth  :  Shewing,that  every 
"  Soul  that  is  born  in  theFlefli,is  polluted  with  theFilth  of 
'•  Sin  and  Iniquity,  &  that  therefore  that  was  faid  which 
'^  we  mentioned  befoi*e,  that  none  is  clean  from  Pollution 
"  tho"  his  Life  be  but  of  the  Length  of  one  Day.  Befides 
"  all  this,  let  it  be  confidered,  what  is  the  Reafon,  that 
*'  whereas  the  Baptifm  of  the  Church  is  given  for  theFor- 
*'  givenefs  of  Sins,  Infants  alfo  are  by  the  Ufage  of  the 
*'  Church  baptized  :  when,  if  there  were  Nothino-  in  In- 
*'  fants  that  wanted  Forgivenefs  &  Mercy,  the  Grace  of 
*'  Baptifm  would  be  needlefs  to  them."  lb  the  fame 
Purpofe  he  fpeaks  {Homily  14.  on  Luke)  f  "  Infants  are 
"  baptized  for  the  Forgivenefs  of  Sins.  Of  what  Sins  ? 
*^  Or  when  have  they  finned  ?  Or  how  can  any  Reafon 
*'  of  the  Laver  hold  good  in  their  Cafe,  but  according  to 
"  that  Senfe  that  we  mention'd  even  now.  None  is  free 
"  from  Pollution.,  tho"  his  Life  be  but  of  the  Length  of  one 
"  Day  upon  the  Earth  ?  And  it  is  for  that  Reafon,  be- 
*'  caufe  by  the  Sacrament  of  Baptifm  thePollution  of  our 
•'  Birth  is  taken  away,  that  Infants  are  baptized."  And 
in  another  Place  he  afiirms,the  Clxirch  had  received  it  as 
a  Do6lrine  orTradition  from  the  Apofdes,  to  baptize  In- 
fants—J  {Comr/ient.on  the  Epifile  to  the  Roraans.,Book  5.) 
*'  In  the  Law  it  is  commande3,that  a  Sacrifice  be  offered 
'•  for  every  Child  that  is  born  fL^i;.  12.6.)  A  pair  of  ^ur- 
*'  tie  Doves  and  two  young  Pigeons  :  of  which  one  is  for 
"  a  Sin-offerings  the  other  for  aBurnt -offering. — For  what 
*'  Sin  is  this  young  Pigeon  offered  ?  Can  the  Child  that 
"  is  new  born, have  committed  anySin  }  It  has  even  then 
"  Sin,for  which  x}.\^  Sacrifice  is  commanded  ro  be  ofter'd  ; 
*'  from  which  even  he  whofe  Life  is  but  of  one  Day  is 
"  denied  to  be  free.  Of  this  Sin,  David  is  fuppos'd  to 
"  have  faid  that  which  we  mentioned  before  ,  //;  Sin  did 

§  I.    t  Ihil  §.  2.    J  Ihil  5.  s» 


112  A  Defence  of  the  Bivine  Right         Chap.  III. 

^^  my  Mother  conceive  me  *  for  there  is  In  the  Hiftory  no 
"  Account  of  any  particular  Sin  that  his  Mother  had 
"  committed.  For  this  alfo  it  was5that  the  Church  had 
*'  ^\{ofrom  theApfiles a  "Tradition  (orOrder)to|giveBaptifm 
*^  even  to  Infants  ;  for  they  to  whom  the  divine  Myfte- 
*^  ries  were  committed,  knew  that  there  is  in  all  Perfcns 
"  the  natural  Pollution  of  Sin,which  ought  to  be  wafh'd 
«'  away  by  Water  and  the  Spirit ;  by  Reafon  of  which 
«  the  Body  it  felf  is  alfo  called  the  Body  cf  Sinr 

Thefe  Tefti monies  of  Origen  are  fo  clear  and  full  as  to 
put  the  Matter  in  Debate  out  of  all  reafonable  Doubt,  if 
any  Credit  can  be  given  to  them  :  And  there  is  no  Rea- 
fon that  appears,  why  they  Ihould  not  be  credited  ;  and 
our  Adverfaries  can  object  nothing  of  any  Moment,  but 
that  they  are  Tranflations  (as  mod  of  Origenh  Works  are 
Tranflations  out  oUheGreek^m  which  he  wrote,intoL^//;/) 
But  the  Fidelity  of  the  Tranflators,and  the  Authentical- 
nefs  of  thefe  PafTages,  are  fufficiently  vindicated  by  Dr. 
JVall^to  the  Satisladion  of  all  impartial  Enquirers.*  And 
thefe  Tefti  monies  of  Origen  defer  ve  greater  Regard,    in 
that  he  was  one  of  the  moft  learned  Men  of  the  Age,  and 
he  vifited  and  refided  for  fomeTime  in  feveral  of  the  moft 
eminent  Churches  in  his  Day  ;    for  he  was  born  and  e- 
ducated  at  Alexandria  in  Egypt,znd  he  travelled  to  Rome^ 
to  Greece,  to  Pa!eJline,3,ndSyria,  &  into  otherFarts,where 
be  fpcnt  his  Labours  :     And  therefore  muft  be  tho't  to 
be  well  acquainted  with  theCuftom  of  theChuiches  ;  and 
living  fo  near  the  Age  of  the  Apoftles,  being  born  Anna 
Domini  185,  within  an  Hundred  Years  of  the  Apoftles  j 
he  could  not  pofTibly  be  ignorant  how  the  Cafe  ftood  as 
to  the  baptizing  of  Infants  in  the  Times  of  the  Apoftles. 
Efpecially  fince  his  Father  and  Grandfather  were  both 
Chriftians,  from  whom  he  might  have  certain  Informa- 
tion about  this  Matter  ;  and  is  therefore  to  be  admitted 
as  a  competent  Witnefs  both  for  his  own  Times  and  the 
Age  preceedingjup  to  the  Apoftles.     And  he  exprefty  de- 
clares it  to  be  the  common  Ufage  of  the  Church,to  bap- 
tize 

•  Ibid,  J  4,  ij,  6,  7,  »• 

^1 


Chap.III.  of  Infant-Baptlfm:  i/^^ 

tize  Infants,and  that  the  Church  received  it  as  a  Dodrine 
or  Tradition  from  the  Apoflles.  For  we  may  obferve, 
that  he  does  not  fpeak  of  it  as  a  Thing  at  all  oppofed,  or 
denied  by  any  One,  but  occafionally  refers  to  it  for  'A- 
luftrating  and  confirming  other  Points  he  was  handling, 
as  that  which  was  generally  known  and  approved  in  the 
Church.  And  the  fame  Thing  may  be  obferved  of  the 
Teftimoniesof  the  otherFathers  of  that  Age  :  They  do  not 
any  of  them  fet  themfelves  to  defend  or  pleadforir,as  if  it 
met  with  Oppofition  fromGainfayers  ;  but  by  occafional 
Hints  they  give  us  plainly  to  underftand,  it  w^as  the  ge- 
neral approved  Pradice. 

The  next  of  the  Fathers  whofe  Teftimony  I  fliall  pro-' 
duce,  is  the  blefled  Martyr  Cyprian^  who  next  to  Origen 
was  the  moft  noted  Writer  of  the  Church  of  that  Age, 
and  who  was  for  fome  Time  his  Contemporary.  (ForCy- 
prian  was  made  Bifliop  o^  Carthage  in  the  Year  248, and 
Origen  died  in  the  Year  252.  -f)  The  Teflimony  of  this 
ancient  Writer  which  I  refer  to,   was  occafioned  by  a 
Queftion  fent  him  by  Fidus^  a  Frejhyier  or  BijJdop  in  the 
Country,  which  was,  Whether  an  Infant  might  be  baptized 
before  it  was  eight  Bays  old  ?     TheReafon  of  his  Doubt, 
it  feems,  was  the  Law  of  Circumcifion,  which  under  the 
Old-Teilament  required  an  Infant  to  be  circumcis'd  the 
eighthDay  from  its  Birth.     TheRefolution  y^\\\c\iCyprian 
in  a  Council  of  Bifhops  afTembled  at  Carthage^  y^.jD.253, 
gave  to  this  Qiieftion,  was  to  this  Effect,  That  an  Infant 
might  be  baptiz'd  on  the  2d  or  3d  Day,oranyTimie  after 
his  Birth  •,  and  that  Circumcifion  (befides  its  Sacramental 
Nature)  had  fomething  typical  in  it,  particularly  it's  be- 
ing adminiftred  on  the  eighth  Day,   which  ceas'd  at  the 
coming  of  Chrift,who  has  given  us  Baptifm,  the  fpiritual 
Circumcifion,  in  which  we  are  not  tied  up  to  thatCirtum- 
ftance  of  the  Age.     This  Refolution  of  Cyprian  had  the 
unanimous  Concurrence  of  every  one  of  his  Colleagues, 
as  his  Epiftle  to  Fidus  teftifies.     The  Infcription  of   it 
runs  thus, 

I  Cyprian 

t  D«//«'s  Hift,  Vol.  2.  Chap,  6. 


114        A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Rkght        Chap.  111. 

Cyprian  and  the  reft  of  the  Colleagues,  who  are  prefent 
in  Council,  in  Number  fixty  fix,  to  Fidus  our  Bro- 
ther,  Greeting.  * 

The  Epiftle  is  too  large  to  be  inferred  at  full  Length ; 
I  fhall  extrad  afew  Paragraphs  from  it,vvhichmay  fufficc 
to  give  us  the  Sentiments  ot  thofe  Ancients  on  this  Cafe. 
Thus  Cyprian  writes  in  the  Name  of  the  forementioned 
Bifhops  ; 

— "As  to  theCafe  of  Infants,  whereas  you  judge  ^th  at  they 
*'  muji  not  be  hapttjed  within  two  or  three  Days  after  they 
*'  are  horn^and  that  theLaw  of  the  ancimtCircumcifion  is  to 
"  he  obferved^  fo  that  you  think  none  fhould  he  baptized  and 
''  fanUified  before  the  eighth  Day  after  he  is  horn  :  We 
*'  were  all  in  our  Afiembly  of  a  far  different  Opinion  ; 
*'  for  in  this  which  you  thought  fitting  to  be  done,  there 
*'  was  not  one  that  was  of  your  Mind.  But  all  of  us  ra- 
*'  ther  judged,  that  the  Grace  and  Mercy  of  God  is  to  be 
"  denied  to  no  Perfon  born  :  For  whereas  our  Lord  in 
*•'  his  Gofpel  fays,  'The  Son  of  Man  came  not  to  deftroy 
''  Mens' Souls  (or  Lives)  but  to  fave  them — •  As  far  as  lies 
*-'  in  us,no  Soul  if  pofTible  is  to  be  loft. — That  the  eighth 
•^^  Day  was  to  be  obferved  in  the  Jewifti  Circumcifion, 
*'-  was  a  Type  going  before  in  a  Shadow  orRefemblance, 
"  but  on  Chrift's  Coming  was  fulfilled  in  the  Subftance  j 
*'  for  becaufethe  eighthDay,thatis  the  next  after  theSab- 
''  bath,  was  to  be  the  Day  on  which  the  Lord  was  to 
"  rife  from  the  Dead,  and  quicken  us,  and  give  us  the 
"  fpiritual  Circumcifion  ;  This  eighth  Day  that  is  the 
*'  next  to  the  Sabbath,  or  Lord's  Day, went  before  in  the 
*'  Type,  which  Type  ceafed  when  the  Subftance  came, 
''  and  the  fpiritual  Circumcifion  was  given  to  us.  So 
*'  that  we  judge  that  no  Perfon  is  to  be  hindered  from 
*'  obtaining  the  Grace  (i.e.  of  Baptifm)  by  the  Law  that 
*'  is  now  appointed  ;  and  that  the  Ipiritual  Circumcifion 
*'  ought  not  to  be  reftrained  by  the  Circumcifion  that 
*'  was  according  to  the  Flefh  ;  but  that  all  are  to  be  ad- 
*'  nutted  to  the  Grace  of  Chrift  5  fince  Peicr  fpeaking  in 

the 

t  Hifl.  of  Infant-Baptifai,  Part  I.  Ch.  6.  §  i. 


Chap.  III.  /?/*  Infant- Baptifm.  ii^ 

"  the  A6ls  of  the  Apoftks,  fays,  I'he  Lord  has  /hewn  me 

<«  that  no  Perfon  is  to  be  called  Common,  or  Unclean 

"  This  therefore,  Dear  Brother,  was  our  Opinion  in  the 
"  AfTembly,  that  it  is  not  for  us  to  hinder  any  Perfon 
"  from  Baptifm,  and  the  Grace  of  God,  who  is  merciful 
«'  and  kind,  and  afFedionate  to  all  ;  which  Rule,  as  ic 
*'  holds  for  all,  fo  we  think  it  more  efpecially  to  be  ob- 
%  ferved  in  Reference  to  Infants,and  thofe  that  are  newly 
"  born,  to  whom  our  Help,  and  the  divine  Mercy  is  ra- 
*'  ther  to  be  granted,  becaufe  by  their  Weeping  &Wail- 
"  ing  at  their  firfc  Entrance  into  the  World,  they  do  in- 
*'  timate  nothing  fo  much  as  that  they  implore  Com- 
*•  paflion." 

That  which  is  efpecially  to  be  noted  in  this  Epiflle  to 
i7'^«j, written  by  Cyprian  in  the  Name  of  the  Council  at 
Carthage  is,  that  it  was  not  defigned  to  eftablifh  thePra- 
dice  of  Infant-Baptifm,  or  to  decide  the  Queflion,  Whe- 
ther Infants  were  to  be  baptized  ;  of  which  there  had 
been  no  Doubt ;  but  that  it  was  taken  for  granted  both  by 
Fidus  that  propos'd  the  Cafe,and  by  Cyprian,  &  the  fixty- 
fixBiihops  that  refolved  it,  Thatlnfants  ought  to  be  bap- 
tized ;  but  it  only  determines  that  an  Infant  may  be  bap- 
tized before  the  eighth  Day,  to  which  Circumcifion  was 
reftrained  :  Which  was  the  onlyThing  fcrupled  hyFidus. 
But  if  there  be  any  Truth  in  that  which  is  fuggefted  by 
our  Author,  That  the  Baptifm  of  Infants  was  but  moved 
for  in  the  third  Century  \  The  firft  Queflion  iliould  have 
certainly  been,  Whetherlnfants  may  lawfully  be  baptized 
;  at  all  ?  But  of  this  there  was  no  Qtieflion  then,  and  moit 
of  the  Antipjedobaptifts  do  grant,  (being  compelled  by 
the  Force  of  Truth)  That  the  Pra6lice  of  Infant-Baptifm 
may  be  traced  up  to  Cyprian^  Time.  But  they  muil  go 
higher,  if  they  allow  anyCredFt  to  be  given  to  thisEpiftle, 
which  was  written  but  about  i5oyears  from  theApoilles. 
And  there  can  be  no  Exception  made  againft  it.  nere 
is  not  a  Piece  in  all  Antiquity,  fays  Dr.  f^all,  that  can  he 
more  certainly  proved  to  be  Genuine  than  this.  If  therefore, 
theSaptifm  of  Infants  did  but  then  begin  to  be  a  general 

I  2  Praftice, 


1 1 6  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Ch  a  p.  III. 

Pradice,  and  was  brought  into  t^<=  Church,  as  an  Inno- 
vation, in  the  third  Century,  it  is  utterly  incredible  that 
in  aCouncil  of  rixty-fixFi/hops  in  the  middle  of  that  Cen- 
tury, there  fhould  not  be  one  Man  that  fliould  make  the 
leait  Objetlion  againft  it  -,  or  that  fliould  have  noDoubt, 
but  it  might  be  adminiftred  to  an  Infant  on  the  fe- 
cond  or  third  Day  after  his  Birth.  ForCyprian  declares, 
there  was  not  one  Man  in  that  Aflembly,  that  agreed  in 
Opinion  with  Fidus,  that  the  Baptifm  of  Infants  ought  to 
be  deferred  to  the  eighth  Day  ;  much  lefs  could  they  b^. 
of  Opinion  that  they  ought  not  to  have  it  adminiftred  to 
them  at  all.  This  general  Confent  neceflarily  fuppofes 
the  Pradice  to  have  been  eftablifhed  and  approved  by 
Jong  Cuftom,  and  is  it  felf  a  good  Proof,  if  there  were 
no  other,  that  it  had  obtain'd  in  the  preceeding  Age,  asl 
far  as  the  Apoftles  J 

I  think  it  needlefs  to  recite  at  large  any  more  Pafifages' 
out  of  the  Fathers,  efpecially  fince  our  Author  does  in 
Effedl  yield,  that  plain  Teftimonies  were  given  to  Infant- 
Baptifm,ifom  the  third  Century.  Neverthelefs,to  render 
theEvidence  we  have  of  thisFra6tice,in  thofe  earlyTimes 
of  the  Church,  and  even  from  theApoftles,  the  more  un- 
doubted, let  me  add  in  a  few  brief  Hints,  thefe  further 
Teftimonies  from  thofe  ancient  Writers. 

Gregory  Nazianzen  *  exhorts  Parents  without  Delay 
to  offer  their  Infant- Children  to  God  in  Baptifm. 
"  Haft  thou  an  Infant-Child  ?  (faith  he)  Let  not  Wick- 
*'  ednefs  have  the  Advantage  ot  Tima  ;  let  him  be  fan- 
"  difiedfrom  his  Infancy  ;  let  him.  be  dedicated  from  his 
"  Cradle  to  (or  by)theSpirit."  He,as  well  as  many  others 
of  the  Fathers,  ufes  the  ^ord  fan^t if  ed  for  baptized, 

Qptatus  Billiop  of  Milevis,  comparing  Chriit  to  a  Gar- 
ment,that  is  put  on  in  Baptifm,  in  explaining  what  isfaid 
by  the  Apoftle,  Gal.  3.  27.  As  many  of  you  as  have  been 
baptized  into  ChriftJ^ave  put  on  Cbrijl ;  Says  of  this  Gar- 
ment, ''  Ic  is  not  plaited  (or  contradled)  for  Infants,  nor 
**  ftrecchcd  out  for  young  Men,  nor  is  it  alter'd  to  fuit 
"  Women.''  il  ^;, 


* 


Bid.  Chap.   II.  §  4,     |i  Chap.  9.  §,  2. 


Chap.  III.  <?/ Infant-Baptifm.  117 

SL  Jmbrofey  fhewing  the  Refemblance  between  John 
the  Baptift  and  Elias,  and  having  Reference  to  the  Mira- 
cle of  Elias  in  dividing  the  River  Jordan,  fays,  "Perhaps 
*'  this  may  feem  to  be  fulfilled  in  our  Time,  and  in  the 
"  ApoftlesTime  :  For  that  returning  of  theRiver- waters 
*'  towards  the  Spring- Head, which  was  cauled  by  Elias^ 
*'  when  the  River  was  divided  fas  theScripture  fays,  Jor- 
"  dan  was  driven  back)  fignified  the  vSacrament  of  the 
"  Laver  of  SaIvation,which  was  afterwards  to  be  inflitu- 
*'  ted  ;  by  which  Infants  that  are  baptized,are  reformed 
"  back  again  from  {Evil)  Wickednefs  (or  a  wickedState) 
"  to  the  primitive  State  of  their  Nature. 'f 

This  is  another  Teftimony  that  carries  Infant-Baptifm 
up  to  the  Times  of  the  Apollles  •,  and  this  was  written 
but  about  274  Years  after  the  Apoftles. 

St.  Chryfoftom  about  the  Year  380,  fpeaking  of  the 
Difference  betweenCircumcifion  of  old,andChriftianBap- 
tifm,  which  God  has  given  us  inilead  thereof :  among  o- 
ther  Things,  fays  ;  "  Our  Circumcifion,  I  mean  the 
*'  Grace  of  Baptifm — has  no  determinate  Time,  as  that 
''  had,  but  One  that  is  in  the  Beginning  of  his  Age,  or 
*'  One  that  is  in  the  middle  of  it,  or  One  that  is  in  his 
"  old  Age,  may  receive  it."* 

Abundance  of  fuch  occafional  Hints  arc  drop'd  In  the 
Difcourfes  and  Writings  of  the  Ancients  in  Relation  to 
Infant-Baptifm, which  feem  to  have  a  more  peculiarForce 
to  perfuade  us,  that  it  was.  a  general  uncontroverted 
Practice  in  their  Day,  than  if  they  had  made  Ufe  of  kt 
Difcourfes  to  prove  it.  They  feem  to  fpeak  of  it  in  fuch 
a  Manner  as  any  One  would  now,  in  treating  on  other 
Subje(5ls,referring  to  anyPoint  of  Dodlrine  orPra61:ice,that 
is  generally  taken  for  granted,  about  which  there  is  no 
Difpute.  Let  me  add  to  thefe  a  FaiTage  of  St  An§fin^ 
about  300  Years  after  theApofties  (in  his  Difpute  againft 
xhtDonatiJts  concerning  Baptifm.  Book  4  Chap.  15.) 
which  is  as  ample  a  Teftimony  as  any  one  can  defire. 

"  If  any  one,"  faith  he,  "  do  afk  for  divine  Authority 

I    3  ^'    18 

t  Chap.  13.  5  I.    JChap,  14.  §.  I.  -  -; 


<c 


1 1 8  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  III. 

"  in  this  Matter ;"  {viz  of  Infants  baptized)  "  tho*  that , 
"  which  the  whole  Church  pradlifes,  and  which  has  not : 
"  been  inftituted  by  Councils,  but  was  ever  inUfe^is  very 
"  reafonably  believed  to  be  no  other  than  a  Thing  deli* 
*'  ver'd  (ororder'd)  by  the  Authority  of  the  Apoitles  ; 
yet  we  may  befides  take  a  true  Eftimate,  how  much 
the  Sacrament  of  Baptifm  does  avail  Infants,  by  the 
*'  Circumcifion  whichGod's  formerPeople  received."  [| 

But  for  a  Conclufion  of  thefe  Teftimonies  of  the  An- 
cients, let  me  only  fay,  further,  that  the  ancient  Fathers 
never  had  theOccafion  of  fpeaking  fo  diredly  to  thePoint 
of  Infant- Baptifm,as  when  the  Pelagian  Controverfy  arofe 
aboutthe  beginning  of  the  fifthCentury,moftAuthors  pla- 
cing it  intheYear  4io,whenP^/^^/«j  began  to  vent  hishe- 
reticalOpinions  ati<^;;?^,theChief  whereof  were  thefe  two^ 
viz.  Thatlnfants  were  conceiv'd  &  born  without  original 
Sin,  derived  to  them  fromJdam.  The  other  Error  he  was 
charg'd  with,  was  his  denying  the  fupernatural  Grace  of 
God  to  be  neceffary  to  good  Works.  It  was  the  former  of 
thefe  that  gave  Occafion  to  the  Writers  of  the  Church 
who  appear'd  in  Opofition  to  that  Tenet  of  PelagiuSj 
(that  Infants  were  horn  free  from  anyJinfulDefilemcnt)  par- 
ticularly to  St.  Hierome,  and  St.  Jujiin,  who  were  the 
chief  that  wrote  againft  him,  to  infill  much  upon  the 
Baptifm  of  Infants,  which  being  the  known  &  generally 
receiv'd  Pradice  of  the  Church, was  improv'd  by  them  as 
anArgument  inConfutation  ofPelagius,  St.Juffin  clofely 
urges  this  Argument  in  his  Writings  againft  ihcPelagians^ 
That  Infants  are  hy  all  Chrifiians  acknowledged  to  ftand  in 
JNeed  of  Baptifm^  which  mtift  be  in  them  for  original  Siny 
fince  they  have  no  other.  If  they  have  no  Sin,  why  are 
they  then  baptized  according  to  the  Rule  of  the  Church 
for  the  Forgivenefs  of  Sins  ?  Why  are  they  wafJoed  in  the 
Lav er  of  Regeneration .,if  they  have  noBefilement  ?  Pelagius 
was  extreamly  puzzled  and  perplexed  by  thisArgument, 
and  knew  not  hov/  to  evade  th'eForce  of  it,  but  by  invol- 
ving himfelf  in  greater  Abfurditics  j  for  he  had  not  the 

Impudence 

11  Chap.  15.    J,  3, 


Chap.  III.  <?/  Infant-Baptifm.-  ii^ 

Impudence  or  Impiety  to  deny  either  that  Infants  had 
Need  of  Baptifm,  or  that  it  was  the  conftant  &  univerfal 
Cuflom  of  theChurch  to  baptize  them.  On  the  contrary, 
he  plainly  acknowleged  it  •,  for  being  accus'd  by  fome  of 
denying  the  Baptifm  of  Infants,  which  they  drew  as  a 
Confequence  from  his  Opinion,thatInfancs  were  free  from 
original  Sin,  he  utterly  denies  this  Confequence,  &  com- 
plains of  the  Accufation  as  a  Slander  of  his  Adverfaries ; 
and  in  the  ConfefTion  of  his  Faith,  which  he  fent  to  Pope 
Innocent  the  fir fi  (recited  at  large  by  Dr.  Wall)  he  owns, 
that  Baptifm  ought  to  be  adminiffred  to  Infants  with  the 
fame  Sacramental  Words  as  it  is  to  elder  Perfons.  And  in 
his  Letter  fent  to  him  at  the  fame  Time,  he  vindicates 
himfelf  in  the  flrongeft  Terms,  and  fays,  ^hat  Men  do 
flander  him  as  if  he  denied  the  Sacrament  of  Baptifm  to  In.-- 
fants^  and  did  promife  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  to  any  Per- 
fons  without  theRedemption  of  ChrijiJ^  And  aflirms,/^^/ 
he  never  heard  any^not  even  the  mojt  impious  Heretick^  that 
would  fay  fuch  aThing  of  Infants,  ThisConfefTion  ofPelagius 
feems  to  carry  in  it  little  iefs  than  the  Force  of  a  Demon- 
ftration,  That  Infant-Baptifm  univerfally  obtained,Time 
out  of  Mind  ;  for  he  whofe  Intereft  it  was  (being  fo  hard 
prefs'd  with  this  Argument  for  original  Sin  in  Infants)  to 
have  it  believed,  thatBaptifm  was  not  inftituted  for  them, 
and  that  it  was  not  the  Pradice  of  the  Church  from  the 
TimesofChrift&hisApoftleSjtoadminifteritto  them ;  he 
could  not  fail  of  getting  fome  Notice  of  it,  if  it  had  been 
true.  But  the  Pradice  was  fo  notorious  toallChriftians, 
that  he  never  durft  deny  it,  how  much  foever  his  Caufe 
required  it  •,  but  declares  that  he  never  heard  of  any  whe- 
ther Catholick  or  Heretick  (that  own'd  any  Chriftian 
Baptifm  j  that  denied  it  to  Infants  •,  and  accounts  it  a 
Slander  call  upon  him,  tha%he  was  charged  with  denying 
it  to  them. 

There  was  furely  noSociety  of  Antipsedobaptifls  then 
in  the  World,  nor  within  the  Memory  of  Man  in  his 
Time,  otherwife  he  mud  have  known  or  heardl  of  them  ; 

I  4        "^  '  for 

:j:  Chap,  lo,    5  29.  30* 


1 2C>         A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.  III. 

for  Pcslagius  was  a  great  Scholar,  and  a  great  Traveller, 
and  had  been  converfant  in  moflParts  of  the  World  where 
the  Chriftian  Church  flourifhed  in  that  Age.  He  was 
born  in  Britain,  and  travelled  to  Rome,  where  he  refided 
fome  Time,  and  was  acquainted  with,  and  had  inEfteem 
by  the  learned  Men  there.  From  thence  he  went  into 
Africa,  to  Egypt,  to  Jerufakm,  where  he  abode  a  confide- 
rableTime,  and  therefore  he  muft  be  fuppos'd  to  be  well 
acquainted  with  theCuftoms  of  moft  Churches  in  Chri- 
Itendom  ;  but  he  had  heard  of  no  Church,  or  Chriftian, 
that  denied  Baptifm  to  Infants.  A  Man  of  Pelaghis  his 
Learning  and  Acquaintance  in  the  World,  might  eafily 
uponEnquiry  have  obtain'd  certain  Information  concern- 
ing thisPra6tice  \  whether  it  had  been  inUfe  in  and  from 
theApoftlesTime  i  living  but  threeHundredYears  diftant 
from  them  •,  or  whether  it  was  an  Innovation  brought 
into  the  Church  fince  that  Time  ;  if  he  had  known  this 
latter  to  have  been  the  Cafe,  (and  had  it  been  fo  inFadl, 
its  fcarce  pofTiblebut  he  fhould  know  it)  how  eafily  might 
he  have  baffl'd  St. y^?/i?/Vs Argument,  by  replying  ?  You 
cannot  prove  original  Sin  from  the  baptizing  of  Infants, 
which  is  but  a  modern  Cuftom  and  Innovation  brought 
into  the  Church  of  Chrift,  without  any  Inftitution  from 
the  Beginning,  and  lb  is  of  no  divine  Authority  to  prove 
a  Dodtrine  of  Faith.  But  neither  would  St.  /liiftin  have 
us'd  this  Argument,  nor  Felagius  have  yielded  it,  had  net 
Infant- Baptifm  been  a  general  Pradlice  in  the  Church, 
which  both  of  them  were  verily  perfuaded  had  theStamp 
of  a  divine  Inftitution  upon  it.  But  Pelagiiis  had  Re- 
courfc  to  another  Pretence,to  evade  the  Force  of  the  Ar- 
gument thence  for  original  Sin,  which  was,  that  Infants 
"were  not  baptized  for  the  Forgivenefs  of  Sins,  but  that 
they  might  obtain  theKingdIih  of  Fleaven.  (Which  was 
the  Ground,  I  apprehend,  of  his  being  charg'd  with  pro- 
mifing  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  to  fome  without  the  Re- 
demption of  Chrift  •,  whichjhc  denies  in  hisLetter  toP(?^,^ 
Innocent  above  cited)  A  new  and  abfnrd  Fancy,  peculiar 
to  him  &hisAccompiiccs  -,  which  has  had  npMaintainers, 
fo  far  as  appears^  fmcc  hi*^  Times,  Upon 


Chap.  III.  ^/ Infant -Baptifm.  121 

Upon  the  whole,let  the  impartial  Reader  judge,  whe- 
ther the  Author  of  the  Dialogue  had  not  fufficientReafon 
to  aflert,  That  there  is  undcubted  Evidence  from  the  ancient 
Fathers^  that  Infant -Baptifm  constantly  obtained  in  the  truly 
primitiveChurch  ?  And  theChurch  in  the  three  firilCentu- 
ries  has  generally  been  allow'd  by  all  the  learned  inAnti- 
quity,to  be  that  primitive  Church,  which  was  mofl  pure 
from  Corruption  in  Do6lrine  and  Difcipline. 

But  perhaps  fome  may  inquire.  What  is  there  in  the 
Writings  of  the  Ancients  that  makes  againftPa^dobaptifm  ? 
Since  I  intimated,  that  in  the  forementioned  Colledlion 
the  Author  of  it  propos'd  to  alledge  impartially  all  fuch 
Paflages  in  the  ancient  Fathers,  as  make  either /?r,  or 
agaivjf  Infant- Baptifm  ;  and  fincel  have  given  a  Tafte 
of  the  Writers  that  fpeak  for  it,  fome  may  be  curious  to 
know  what  has  been  faid  againftir,and  by  whom.  Where- 
fore, that  I  may  not  be  thought  to  conceal  any  Thing  of 
the  Strength  of  our  Adverfaries,  I  muft  anfvver,The  only 
Man  in  all  Antiquity  (as  I  obferv'd  before)  who  appears 
to  have  fpoken,or  written  anyThing  againft  the  baptizing 
of  Infants,or  advifed  the  deterring  of  it  to  more  adult  Ages, 
isTVr/z////^;^;  whofeOpinion  has  been  already  confider'djand 
tho'  OLirildverfaries  in  thisDebate,  appeal  to  him  as  their 
great  Patron,  ye<-  I  have  fufficiently  fhewed,  how  little 
their  Caufe  is  favoured  even  by  this  one  Man.  It's  true, 
ourAnipaedobaptill Writers  do  often  fill  many  Pages,  to 
the  furfeitingof  theRcader,withPafrages  cited  from  thefe 
ancient  Writers,  which  relate  to  Aduit-Baptifm,and  the 
ProfefTion  of  Faith  that  goes  before  it,  which  us'd  to  be 
inculcated  upon  ihtCatechumens  (i.  e.  thofe  who  came  over 
from  Paganifo  to  C  hriftanity,  and  were  inilru6ted  in  the 
Principles  ot  the  Chriilian  Faith  to  prepare  them  forBap- 
tifm)  but  it  is  all  befide  the  Purpofe,  as  I  Ihewed  in  my 
Remarks  on  the  Quotation  from  y/-//?/;^  M^r/>r.  And 
thofe  that  cite  them,can  hardly  be  believed  to  be  in  ear- 
ned, but  that  they  defign'd  to  impofe  upon  the  illiterate 
Vulgar  •,  unlefs  they  thoughc,that  thePasdobaptiils  v/ere- 
lellrainedby  theirPrinciples  Irom  adminidringBaptiUn to 
any  befides  Infants,or  denied Adiu:-Bapnfm.  But 


122        '  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  IIL 

But  let  thisQuellion,  (What  has  heenfaid^or  written  by 
the  ancientFathers^againfi  Infant'  Baptifm? )ht  anfwered  by 
Dr.  Wall^  who  had  the  beflAdvanta^^es  forKnowing,and 
who  made  it  the  principal  Subjed  of  his  Studies  andEn- 
quiries  ;  he,  in  fumming  up  theEvidence  on  bothSides,  |j 
and  after  having  given  a  fummary  Account  of  the  Evi- 
dence for  Iniant-Baptifm,  adds  thefe Words,  "  Laftly,  as 
*'  thefe  Evidences  are  for  the  firft  four  Hundred  Years, 
*'  in  which  there  appears  only  oneMan,  Tertullian^  that 
*«  advis'd  the  Delay  of  Infant -Baptifm  in  fomeCafes,  and 
*'  one  Gregory  that  did  perhaps  pradtife  fuchDelay  in  the 
*'  Cafe  of  hisChildren  •,  but  no  Society  of  Men  fo  think- 
"  ing,  or  fo  pradlifing  ;  nor  no  one  Man  faying,  it  was 
*^  unlawful  to  baptize  Infants  ;  fo  in  the  next  fevenHun- 
"  dred  Years,  there  is  not  fo  much  as  one  Man  to  be 
''  found,that  either  fpoke  for,  or  pradifed  any  fuchDc- 
«'  lay,  but  all  the  contrary.  And  when  about  the  Year 
*'  one  Thoufand  one  Hundred  ^  thirty,  one  Sed  among 
*'  \\xtWaldenfes  declared  againft  the  baptizing  of  Infants, 
*'  as  being  uncapable  of  Salvation,the  main  Body  of  that 
"  People  rejeded  that  their  Opinion  ;  and  they  of  them 
«'  that  held  that  Opinion,  quickly  dwindled  away,  and 
*'  difappear'd  ;  there  being  no  more  heard  of,  holding 
"  that  Tenet,  till  the  rifing  of  the  G^r;;/^;^Antipa^dobap- 
"  tilts  in  the  Year  1522. 

This,  upon  the  bell  &  moft  impartial  Search,has  been 
found  theTruth  of  the  Cafe  •,  which  fhews,  that  our  Au- 
thor, however  he  fails  in  his  Proofs,  does  not  at  all  in  his 
Contidence,when  he  fays,  "Throughout  thefe  feveralCen- 
*'  turies'*  (i.  e.  from  the  third  Century  until  the  Time  of 
theRcformation.)  "  there  wereTeftimonies  bore  toAdult- 
*'  Baptifm  \  and  at  leveral  Times  certainPerfons  rofe  up 
*«  andoppos'd  Infant-Baptifm."  SomeMen  are  very  ape 
to  believe  that  which  they  have  a  flrong  Defire  to  find 
true  •,  otherwife  it  can't  be  accounted  for,that  Perfons  of 
anyReading,  or  Ingenuity, among  our  Adverfaries,fhould 
perfuade  themfelves  into  theBelief  of  what  is  allerted  here 

by 

|[  Hill,  of  Infant-Baptifm,  Part  z.  Chap.  10.  §  i. 


Chap.  III.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  123 

by  our  Author,  of  which  they  have  never  been  able  to 
bring  any  tolerable  Proof,  tho'  many  have  attempted  it, 
andDr.  Gill  among  the  refl,under  the  nextHead,to  which 
I  fhall  proceed  with  him,  and  beftow  fome  Remarks  on 
what  he  has  advanced.     Wherefore, 

III.  The  next  Thing  he  has  thought  lit  to  difpute  is, 
that  which  is  aflerted  {Tiial.  P.  7.)  that  "  It  cannot  be 
"  pretended  that  this  Pradlice  was  called  in  Queftion  or 
*'  made  Matter  of  Debate  in  theChurch,  till  theMadmcn 
"  of  Munfterizx.  themlelves  againflit." — It  is  but  a  weak 
Oppofition  that  our  Author  makes  againfl  thisAfiertion  ; 
for  tho'  he  could  not  fairly  deny  it,  yet  he  makes  a  great 
Shew  of  Proof  on  the  contrary,  by  mulriplying  his  Au- 
thorities :  but  in  Effed,  all  that  he  has  alledged  amounts 
to  no  more  than  what  is  fuppos'd  in  theDialogue,  at  leaft 
may  be  eafily  accounted  for,without  any  Con  tradition  to 
the  foremention'dAflertion.  Which  a  few  Remarks  may 
ferve  to  make  evident. 

^/r/?,  WithRefpect  to  theTimesfince  theReformation. 
I.  I  oblerve,he  takes  a  great  Deal  of  Pains  to  prove, 
that  which  will  be  readily  granted,  by  his  Qiiotations 
from  P.  2 5.  to  P.  29.  which  is,  That  there  wereAnabap- 
tifts  in  Being,  that  rais'd  many  Stirs,  andDifputes  in  Ger- 
many fome  few  Years  (ten  or  twelve  at  moft)  before  the 
Tragical  Affair  q{ Munfter^  who  were  either  the  famePer- 
fons,  or  others  of  the  fame  Spirit  &  Way  with  thofe  that 
were  concern'd  in  that  Affair  ;'  which  was  fo  remarkable 
for  that  Scene  of  Enthufiaim,  Blalphemy,  Sedition,  and 
Confufion  that  was  aded  in  that  City,  as  well  as  for  the 
difmal  Fate  of  the  chief  Authors,  and  Leaders  in  ii:,as  to 
give  Denomination  to  the  whole  Sed:.  And  who  (but  one 
that  had  a  Mind  to  cavil)  could  have  thought,  that  the 
Writer  of  the  Dialogue  meant  any  other,by  theMadmen 
of  Munfier^  than  the  German  Anabaptifls  ?  as  tho'  he  had 
faid,  there  was  no  Strife  or  Debate  m  the  Church  about 
Infant- Bapriim, till  theRifeof  the  Anabaptifts  mGcrnian)\ 
who  made  themfelvcs  ]:nown  to  theWorld,and  to  Poite- 
rity  by  the  v/ild  Excrav.iganci'.^s  th^ir  enthufiaflick  Prin- 
ciples 


124  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.  III. 

ciples  led  them  into,  with  the  fatal  EfFeds  thereof  in  the 
City  of  Munfier  •,  tho'  they  fet  themfelves  (as  is  fuppofcd 
in  the  Dialogue)  to  oppofe  Infant- Baptifm,  a  tew  Years 
before  they  afted  that  mad  Part.  TheMadnefs  (disNlx.Fox 
calls  the  Errors  of  the  Anabaptifts)  had  been  growing 
upon  them  for  feme  Years,  before  it  grew  up  to   the 
Height  of  enthufiaftick  Frenzy  at  Munjier. .    I'herefore 
our  Author  might  have  fpar'd  his  Pains  in  fearching  out 
the  Dates  of  theTranfadlions,  andDifputes  of  thofeTimes, 
(that  he  might  find  fomeOppofers  of  P^edobaptifm  before 
the  Extravagancies  dxMunfter)  which  he  runs  up  within 
5  or  6  Years  of  theReformation  begun  by  Luther  -,  which 
will  be  granted  him  without  much  Difficulty.  But  does 
he  think  any  one  fo  void  of  Senfe,as  to  imagine, theMad- 
men  of  Munfier  v/ere  drop'd  out  of  theClouds,  and  never 
known  or  heard  of  before  ?  or  not  rather,that  they  were 
of  the  fame  Tribe,  orParty  of  Men  known  by  theName 
of  Anahapti^s  (which  is  given  them  by  all  theWriters  of 
thofe  Times)  who  by  their  Preachings  &  Difputations  in 
the  preceeding  Years,  raifedCommorions  in  feveralParts 
of  Germany  !     Thefe  Times  are  plainly  enough  included 
in  that  Period  mention'd  in  the  Dialogue,  in  which  thofe 
Men  fee  themfelves  againft  the  Pradice  of  Infant-Bap- 
tifm.         But 

2.1  obferve,  he  would  fain  clear  the  People  cdWcdAna- 
hapttfts^  from  being  concerned  in  thofe  1  umults  in  Ger- 
many  raifed  a  little  aficr  the  Reformation, at  lead  from  be- 
ing the  chief  Promoters  thereof;  in  which  Endeavour  he 
has  advanced  feveralThings  tending  to  difguife  theTruth, 
which  require  fome  Animadverfion. 

Firjl^  He  fays  P^^.25.  "  That  theDifturbances  inGer- 
many  were  firil  begun  in  the  Wars  of  the  Boors^on  the  Ac- 
count of  Civil  Liberties.^''  This  is  fo  far  true,  that  there 
were  before  the  Reformation  greatDifcontents  among  the 
Boors^  or  poor  Country-Peafants  of  Germany^  being  grie- 
voufly  opprefs'd  by  the  tyrannical  Government  of  their 
Princes,  and  by  their  rich  Landlords,  and  fome  Commo- 
tions rais'd  on  that  Account.     But  then  to  declare   the 

whole 


Chap.  III.  ^I  infant-Baptifm.  125 

whole  Truth,  ^'c  fliould  be  added.  That  thefe  Ferments 
continuing  ^<^"^^  Years  after  the  Reformation  fet  on  Foot 
by  Liiibcr  in  the  Year  1 5 1 7,  there  rofe  up  feveral  fana- 
tical Feachers,  who  took  Advantage  of  them  fordiflemi- 
nating  their  fedicious  Opinions  among  the  Vulgar  \  the 
chiet  or  whom  mentioned  inHiftory,were  NicholasStorck^ 
an  ilhterate  Man,  Mark  Slukr j^nd  Thomas Mimtzer^  who 
appeared  about  the  Year  1521.  f  and  began  to  divulge 
their  pernicious  Dodrines  ;  and  among  other  Opinions 
tending  toDivifion  in  theChurch,they  preach'd  up  Liberty 
fromSubje5fion  toPrinces  in  temporal'Tbings  ;  and  Communion 
cfGocds,2is\tyN2is  in  theprimitiveChurch^Dodrines  highly 
to  the  Reliih  of  the  opprefledCountry-People  ;  by  which 
Means  they  drew  theMukitude  after  them.  Luther  hav- 
ing in  the  Year  1520,  publifh'd  his  Book  of  Chrijiian 
Liberty^  thefe  Men  pretending  to  Infpiration  and  fecret 
Communication  with  God,  carried  his  Principle  of  Li- 
berty, much  further  than  he  ever  intended.  For  tho' 
Luther  afTerted  the  juft  Liberty  of  all  Chriftians  from  the 
Yoke  of  Popifli  Tyranny,  and  the  burthenfome  Seperfti- 
tions  and  human  Inventions,  wherewith  they  loaded  the 
Confciences  of  Men  ;  yet  both  he  and  the  other  firft  Re- 
formers conflantly  and  ftridly  taught  Obedience  &Sub- 
jedion  to  the  civil  Migifhrate  in  Things  temporal.  But 
thefe  enthufiailick  Preachers  taught  their  Followers  not 
only  to  renounce  the  Romifh  .Tyranny,  but  thcAuthority 
of  the  civil  Magiftrate,efpecially  Muntzer  the  chief  Lea- 
der of  the  Seditious  Rabble,  who  openly  profefs'd  him- 
felf  raifed  up  by  God  to  punifli  wicked  Princes,  and  fliled 
himfclf  the  Sword  of  the  Lord,  and  of  Gideon,  conflantly 
declaim'd  againft  the  Government  of  the  PrinceSjas  harfli 
and  tyranical,and  not  to  be  tolerated  by  Chriflians  ;  and 
having  the  Multitude  attach'd  to  him,  he  inculcated  it 
upon  them  that  all  Things  were  free  byNature^and  common 
to  all,  and  that  the  Yoke  of -the  Princes  was  to  be  fhaken  off^ 
as  well  as  that  of  iU  Pop*     And  it  was  held  by  them 

as 

f  Fred.  Spanhefn.  Diatribe  Hiftorica  Ds  Origimt  Progreffu,  $i%,   Ana- 
%^.     §.    I,  2,     I  Ibid,  §.   3,  4,  9.  ' 


JlS         A  Defence  of  the  Divine  fHi^ht  Chap.  Ill 

as  aPrIncipIc,that  it  was  not  fit,  nor  to  be  ^ndur'd  in  the 
Kingdom  ofChrift,that  fome  fhould  be  foRich,&r  others  fo 
Poor  &c.|l  The  giddy  Multitude,  infpii'dwiththefe  Wel- 
lingPrinciples,grew  tumultuous,&  wenton under  theirEn- 
thufiaftickLeaderjCommitting  horribleDiforders  mGerma-- 
fiy^  Magiftrates  were  depofed,Monafteries  rifled,  rich  Men's 
Houfes  pillag'd,  and  fpoiled  of  their  Goods,  &c.     The 
IfTue  of  thefeExofbitances,fo  fatal  to  the  Authors  of  them, 
and  to  many  Thoufands  of  poor  fimple  People  led  blind- 
fold by  them,  in  the  Year  1525  +     it  is  not  my  Bufinefs 
to  relate  :  I  fhall  only  obferve,  that  2iktvMuntzer  had  fee 
out  upon  Principles  of  Sedition  againft  the  civil  Govern- 
ment,   and  could  not  be  flopped  in  his  wild  Career,  by 
the  Warnings  of  Luther ^2in^  the  Teflimony  borne  againft 
his,  and  his  Followers  licencious  Proceedings,  by  other 
Proteftant  Minifters,  as  that  which  brought  a  Scandal 
upon  the  Reformation  ;    he  inveighed  againft  Luther*^ 
Reformation  as  imperfect,  and  began  to  confult  with  his 
Accomplices  about  renewing  the  Church  to  a  more  per- 
fedl  State.     Then  they  took  it  into  their  Thoughts  to 
baptize  a- new,  thofe  that  became   their  Difciples  {jjla 
Occafione  Cogitatum^  fays  Spanheim)  and  leaft  any  Scruple 
of  Confcience  in  Refpedt  of  their  former  Baptifm  ftiould 
prove  an  Obftacle  to  their  Defign,  they  declaim'd  againft 
Intant-Baptlfm,  condemning  it  as  Unprofitable  and  Un- 
lawful, becaufe  Infants  were  not  capable  of  that  Sacra- 
ment ',  but  only  the  Adult,  who  were  able  to  judge  and 
choofe  for  themfelves,  ought  to  have  it  adminiftred  to 
them.     So  Spanheim  gives  the  Account  of  the  Original 
of  Anabaptifm.*     Whence  it  appears,that  theOppoficion 
toIntant-Baptifm  had  its  Rife  from  a  very  wickedDefign, 
which  was  carrying  on  by  Enthufiaftick  Preachers,   as  it 

fell 

II  JTalP^WSk.  Part  II.  Chap.  8.  §.  4.  f  Spanh.  Diatrib.  Hift.  §.  9. 

*  His  Words  are, —  hide  de  no-vd,  ^  pcrfe^ion  Ecchfia  condendd^ 
fionjuq\  ejus  —  [PoUteia)  aiium,  et  ijla  occaftone  cogitatum,  de  ejus  MyJIis 
no^oo.baph/mo  initiandis,  et  ne  banifmi prioris  ohjiaret  Rtligio',  ddclama- 
turn  in  Pa'dohnpfilmum,  ut  'vanumy  ini7no  illicitum^  hifantibus  quippg 
ejus  haudquaquum  capadbus  CoUatttm^  qiimn  Sacramentum  ijiud  non  mji 
adult  is  f  ^  fuijudicii,  acju<^  Spovtii  Imninibui  confer  ri  dcbeat, — Ibid.  §.  $. 


Chap.  III.  cf  Infant-Baptifm.  127^ 

fell  in  with  their  Scheme  of  attempting  Innovations  both 
in  Church  and  State.  And  if  this  were  to  be  accounted 
a  Reformation  in  this  Ordinance  of  Baptifm,  as  Dr.  Gill 
thinks  it  was,  Fa,  29.  we  lee  what  Sort  of  Men  were  the 
Inftruments,  and  by  what  Counfels  it  was  begun  &  car- 
ried on  !  And  how  unlikely  it  is,  that  thefe  firft  Admi- 
niftrators  of  it  in  the  Way  of  theAntip^dobaptiftslhould 
have  the  extraordinary Prefence  of  Chrift  with  them,while 
cngag'd  in  fo  wicked  an  Enterprize. 

Secondly^  He  fays,  Pa.  25.  "  That  the  forementioned 
"  Difturbances  were  firft  begun  by  fuch  as  were  Paedo- 
"  baptifts,  Papifis^  and  Lutherans,'''  Which  (tho'  it  be  a 
Truth,yet  as  he  has  left  it  unexplain'd)  feems  defigned  to 
transfer  the  Blame  of  beginning  thofe  Tumults  on  the 
Pasdobaptifts,  and  to  perfwade  the  vulgarReader  that  the 
Anabaptifts  had  no  Hand  in  it  -,  tho'  he  confcfTes,  that 
*'  in  procefs  of  Time  fome  few  of  the  People  callcdAna- 
*'  baptifts  mingled  themfelves  among  them."  An  artful 
concealing  of  the  Truth  in  Fa6l. 

I  am  fully  perfuaded,that  all  thofe  who  are  charg'd  as 
the  Authors  of  thofeDifturbances,  were  at  firftPasdobap- 
tiftsjOr  fuch  as  had  received  no  other  thanlnfant-Baptifm : 
for  it  does  not  appear,  that  there  was  any  other  Baptifm 
1  commonly  in  Ufe  in  the  Church  at  the  Beginning  of  the 
;  Reformation.     But  thefe,  and  thefe  only  were  the  very 
Men  who  were  afterwards  known,  and  diftinguifh'd  by 
the  Name  of  Anabaptifts^  on  the  Account  of  theirPradlice 
\  of  Re-baptizing,  and   fetting  themfelves  againft  Infant- 
I  Baptifm  •,  who  (tho'Paedobaptifts  at  their  firft  fetting  out) 
\  yet  in  theCourfc  of  their  tumultuous  Proceedings,  found 
j  it  requifite  to  their  Defign  of  innovating  in  the  Church, 
I  to  condemn  &  renounce  Baptifm  in  Infancy,  and  to  bap- 
tize over  again  fuch  as  join'd  themfelves  to  them.  That 
i  this  is  the  plainTruth  ot  the  Cafe,may  appear  from  what 
i  was  laft  mention'd  under  the  foregoing  Head.    And  all 
!  Authors  that  write  of  thefeAfi'airs,generilly  impute  thofe 
:  Seditions  &  Infurredions  that  happen'd  u\Germany^  fince 
theReformadgn,to_^thePeopie  calkdAnaba^tifts,and  their 
.      "  Leaders, 


i28  ^A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right       Chap.  IIL 

Leaders,  and  to  them  only.  And  the  Stirs  andSeditions 
that  follow'd  the  Defeat  of  Muntzer,  and  the  Difperfion 
of  his  Followers,are  conftantly  attributed  to  the  Seeds  of 
Anabaptifm,that  had  been  fcatter'd  and  taken  deepRoot 
in  Germany  and  other  neighbouring  States  and  Provinces, 
and  were  cultivated  by  Anabaptift-Teachers  -,  parti- 
cularly F^elix  Manlz,  Conrad  Grebel,  and  Balthafar 
Hubmeier^  the  chief  Leaders  of  that  Sedl,  whom  our 
Author  commends  for  their  Learning  and  Knowlege  in 
the  Tongues,  Pa.  28.  A  rare  Thing  then  to  be  found  a- 
mong  the  People  of  thofe  Principles  But  otherWriters 
brand  them  as  Incendiaries,caufingDifturbances  &  Com- 
motions in  the  State,  wherever  they  came  to  difTeminate 
theirDodlrine.-f  For  which  Caufc  theMagi Urates  of  Zu- 
rich, and  other  Cities  and  States  were  induced  to  make 
fevereEdicSls  againft  them,by  which  fome  of  them  fuffer'd.  ■ 
Korean  our  Author  (I  believe)  produce  any  Proof  from 
good Authority,of  any  oneP^dobaptift  that  had  an  Hand 
in  raifing  thofe  Difturbances,  that  did  not  fall  off  to  the 
Principles  of  the  Anabaptifts. 

To  what  Purpofe  then,  is  it  to  tell  the  World,  that  the 
Difturbances  in  Germany  were  firft  begun  by  the  P^edo- 
haptifts  I  when  ( to  fpeak  truly  )  he  could  mean  nothing 
elfe  than  that  they  had  been  P^dobaptiffs,   but   by  the 
fame  enthufiaftick  Principles,  whereby  they  were  infti- 
gated  to  make  thofcDifturbances,  they  were  alfo  induced 
to  btcomt  Jnabapti/is.  He  does  indeed  fay,  P. 26.  That 
«'  even  the  Difturbances  in  Munfter,    a  famous  City  in 
*'  PVeHphalia,  were  firft  begun  by  Bernard  Rot  man  a  P^- 
«'  dobaptiftMinifter,  of  the  Lutheran  Perfuafion,  afiifted 
"  by  other  Minifters  of  the  Reformation."     But  here  a- 
gain,   he  ufeth  Equivocation  with  his   Reader :     The 
Difturbances  he  refers  to,  were  quite  of  a  different  Na- 
ture from  thofe  we  are  now  fpeaking  of,whichwere  raifed 
by  the  Anabaptifts,  and  from  thofe  that  were  afterwards 
raifed  in  the  City  of  Munfler  by  the  fame  Men.     The 
Difturbances  that  followed  thePrcaching  of  Bernard  Rot- 
many 

t  U'id,    §  16: 


Chap.  III.  ^/ Infant-Baptifm.'  129 

man^  were  of  the  fameNature  with  thofe  which  common- 
ly attended  the  Preaching  of  the  lame  Doftrine  of"  the 
Gofpel  in  other  Places,  in  Oppofition  to  popilli  Errors 
and  Superftitions,  thro'  the  Malice  of  the  Pap-fts  •,  nor' 
were  the  Diflurbances  in  Munffer  properly  ralfed  by  him, 
but  by  the  popifh  Party,  the  Adverfaries  of  the  Refor- 
mation. This  Bernard  Rotman  was  at  firll  a  Preacher 
of  the  reformed  Do6trine  at  Munfler^  where  he  with  his 
Colleagues  had  very  great  Succefs,  a  great  Multitude  in 
the  City  embracing  theReformation  •,  whereupon  aCon- 
troverfy  arofe  between  them  and  the  Papifts,  about  the 
Ufe  of  the  Churches  in  the  City  for  the  pubHck  Perfor- 
mance of  facred  Offices  -,  but  even  this  Difference  was 
well  compofed  by  the  Interpofition  of  the  goodOffices  of 
the  Landgrave  of  Hejfe  ;  and  all  was  peaceable  and  quiec 
in  the  City  before  the  .inahapiifts  flocked  thither  in  the 
Year  1533,  among  whom  the  Chief  of  the  Party  were 
John  Matthias  of  Harlem^  one  of  their  new  Prophets  ; 
John  Becold^^T 3.y\oi'  oi  Leyden^  Bernard  Kmpperdol:ng,2ind 
others  known  in  Hiftory.  I'hefe,  firfl  more  privately 
infmuating  themfelves  into  the  Favour  of  the  Citizens, 
began  to  fpread  their  Errors,  condemning  Pxdobaptifm, 
baptizing  a-new  thofe  that  embraced  theirDodrine,teach- 
ing  theCommunion  of  Goods,(for  they  found  this  a  Doc- 
trine very  palatable  to  the  Vulgar)  till  in  a  fhort  Time 
they  grew  to  a  vaft  Number,  and  became  the  prevailing 
Party  of  the  City,  having  called  their  Friends  to  them 
out  of  the  Neighbouring  Towns  and  Provinces  *,  even 
Bernard  Rotman  was  carried  away  with  the  Stream  •,  he 
^nd  fome  others  that  had  been  P^dobaptifts  before,  fall- 
ing away  to  the  Anabaptifts,  many  Tumults  were  raifed 
in  theCity,  in  fo  much  that  mod  of  theSenators,  &  wifer 
and  fobererSort  of  People  departed  out  of  it5as  forefeeing 
the  State  that  foon  after  befel  it,  and  left  it  to  the  Sway  of 
the  Anabaptifis^  who  now  over-bore  all ;  and  made  John 
of  Ley  den  their  King,  who  aflumed  the  fi^.natical  Title  of 
JohnKing  of  theNew-Jerufalem^\<Km^Qi^\^\iQQ\Jiinti^^^c. 

K  and 


ijo  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  III. 

and  behav'd  with  incredible  Tyranny,  and  Blafphemy.f 
Here  one  might  have  feen  all  the  wild  Effeds  of  Enthu- 
fiafm  in  its  Reign,  in  all  Manner  of  Licentioufnefs  and 
Difgrder,  under  Pretence  of  the  Liberty  of  the  Gofpel, 
and  the  Kingdom  of  Chrift. 

But  it  is  foreign  to  my  Purpofe  to  enter  into  the  Par- 
ticulars of  this  Tragical  Story  :  In  fliort,  the  City  was  at 
length  befieg'd  by  fome  regular  Forces  brought  againfl  it 
by  the  Bifhop,  who  after  fome  Time  made  themfelves 
Mailers  of  it ;  and  John  of  Leyden^  the  mock  King,  and 
fome  others  of  hisAccomplices  were  taken  alive,  and  put 
to  a  miferable  Death.  And  the  Reil  of  the  Anabaptills 
being  difpers'd,  afterwards  form'd  different  Seds  in  Hol- 
land^ and  the  low  Countries. 

Now  for  a  Man  that  had  read  thefe  Things  {in  Span- 
helms  hiftorical  Difcourfe  of  the  Rife^Progrefs^  and  Setls  of 
the  Anabaptifts^  which  he  has  often  quoted,  as  I  have  alfo 
done  to  fet  Matters  in  a  truer  Light)  to  put  fuch  falfe 
Colours  on  Things,  as  to  fay  that  the  Diilurbances  of 
Munfter  were  firil  begun  by  Bernard  Rot  man,  a  Picdobap- 
i:ifl  Miniiler,  and  other  Minifters  of  the  Reformation, 
(when  by  theDifturbances  of  Munfler^  all  Men  underftand 
thofeTumults  &  Seditions  that  arofe  there  after  the  Year 
1533.  when  the  Anabaptills  prevailed, and  grew  maflier- 
lefs  in  the  City,and  not  fuch  Differences  as  arofe  from  the 
Oppofition  01  the  Papills  to  theDodtrine  of  the  evangeli- 
cal Preachers  common  to  otherPlaces)  cannot,!  think,  be 
(in  the  utmodExrent  ofCharity)  accounted  for  otherwife, 
than  from  a  ilrong  Prejudice  he  was  under  in  Favour  of 
of  his  own  Party.      Yet  after  all, 

'Thirdly,  Let  me  obferve,  that  he  is  willing  to  difclaim 
all  Affinity  with  thofe  GVr;;?:7wAnabapti(ls  j  for  lie  fays-, 
P.  25.  that  they  are  "  a  People  that  fcarce  in  any  Thing 
"  agree  with  us."  But  he  fhould  have  excepted  the  main 
Thing,from  whence  both  Sorts  have  theirDenomm'ition, 
in  which  they  perte6lly  agree,  that  is,  their  Oppoficion  to 
Infant-Baptilm.  'Tia  to  be  hop'd  there  is  no  Agreement 

bcLweea 

•ij-  Ihid.   §.    17. 


Chap.  III.  of  Infant-Baptlfm.  131 

between  our  Englijh  Antipadohaptifts  and  the  old  German 
Anabaptifts  in  their  other  pernicious  Errors  &  feditious 
Principles,  yet  they  continue  the  Innovation  begun  in  the 
Church  by  thofe  Anabaptids  in  Germany^    by  foUowino- 
them  in  their  Principle  of  Antipsedobaptifm.    After  the 
Sedition  of  Mun§ier  they  were  divided  into  many  Sedls  : 
And  one  Menno  Simonis,  the  Patriarch  of  one  of  the  moft 
fober  of  thofe  Se6ls  (from  whom  his  Followers  are  called 
Mennoniils^ov  Mcanift  to  thisDay  inHolland  •,  from  which 
Se:l,  it  is  faid,the  Antipsedobaptifts  in  England  look  their 
Rife)  tho'  he  condemned  many  Things  in  the    Munfier 
Anabapti{ls,yet  was  not  fo  fhy  of  owning  them  for  Bre- 
thren, f  as  Dr.  Gill  feems  to  be,  but  pit:ying  their  hard 
Fate,applies  to  them  theComforts  of  the  Gofpel,  fpoken 
by  Chrifl:  to  them  that  forfake  all  to  follow  him  ;  and 
fays  ('as  his  Words  are  cited  by  Cloppenburch  %)  I  make  no 
'Doubt  ^  hut  that  our  beloved  Brethren^who  have  of  late  tranf- 
greffed  fomewhat  againft  the  Lord^  in  defendin/  their  Faith 
by  Arras  ^  have  found  God  merciful  to  them.     I  perceive  oar 
Antipsedobaptifts  do  not  well  reiiih  this  Story,  and  Dr. 
Gill  in  particular  fays,  ibid^  the  "  Psedobaptift  frequently 
'*•  reproach  us  with  it."  It  mud  be  confefs'd  to  be  aFauk, 
and  contrary  to  theRules  of  Charity  to  reproach  anyMan 
t  with  the  Faults  &  Vices  of  his  PredeceiTors,of  which  he 
i  is  innocent  ;  as  it  is  unchriftian,  and  inhuman,  that  th^ 
!  Child  of  a  virtuous  Difporition  and  Behaviour,  fhould  be 
reproach'd  with  the  Faults  of  his  Anceilors  ;  yet  inCafe 
i  Kis  Title  to  any  Part  of  his  Patrimony,  which  they  had 
I  gotten  by  ill  Means  be  contefted,  he  ought  not  to  take  ic 
i  amifs,  or  impute  it  as  a  Crime  to  any,  that  he  is  told  of 
ithe  Fraud  and  Injuflice  q\  his  Fore-Fathers,     ^o  in  the 
1  prefent  Controverfy,  the  P^dobaptilts,  I  prefume5are  not 
'  to  be  blam'd  for  reviving  theRcmembrance  ot  the  Diflur- 
i  bances,  and  Seditions  caus'd  by  the  German  Anabaptifts, 
!  when  they  are  led  into  it  in  pleading  their  own  Caufe, 
j  while  in  the  mean  Time  they  forbear  taxing  their Adver- 

K  2  *  '  farit§ 

f  Ihid.  §.   18.     %  Chvi]pQnh\iYg.  Gangr^^na  Tbeol.  <^aahj>,  DK^a;^ 
XVI.  Corollar.  J. 


1 3^  A  "Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  III. 

farles  with  the  other  impious  Errors  and  enthufiaftical 
Opinions  of  their  Predeceflbrs  in  Germany^  which  they 
profclTcdly  difavow.  Yet  it  muft  be  own'd  to  be  a  lafting 
Kepmach  to  the  Opinion  it  lelf  which  they  maintain, that 
it  had  its  Rife  in  Company  with  thofe  other  vile  Errors 
and  Opinions. 

Fourthly^  He  fays,P.26.  "That  it  is  not  reafonable  to 
•«  fuppofc  that  thefe  (AnabaptiJls)^Qvt  the  only  Men  con- 
"  cern'd  in  that  AjfFair,  or  that  theNumber  of  their  Fol- 
«*  lowers  fhould  increafe  to  fuch  a  Degree  in  fo  fmall  a 
*'  Time^as  to  make  fuch  allevolution  in  fo  large  aCity." 
But  this  Objeftion  is  fufficiently  obviated  by  what  has 
been  already  faid.  If  indeed  there  had  been  no  Stirs  and 
Debates  about  their  Opinions,  before  the  Madmen  of 
Mmffer  appear'd  to  act  that  mad  Part  in  that  City,  or  if 
they  had  not  fet  themfelves  inOppofition  to  the  common 
Opinion  and  Pradice  of  the  Church  before  that  Time, 
it  had  been  hard  to  account  for  fo  fudden  a  Revolution. 
But  when  it  is  confider'd,  that  there  had  been  for  a  long 
Time  great  Ferments  among  the  Vulgar,  on  theOccafion 
aforemention'd,  and  thefe  increas'd,  and  ftrengthn'd  by 
their  fanatical  Leaders,  w^ho  had  been  for  feveral  Years 
inftiiiing  feditious  Principles  into  them,  efpecially  the 
Do6lriiies  of  Liberty  from  the  Yoke  of  Princes,and  Com- 
munion or  Goods,  under  the  fpecious  Pretence  of  great 
Piety  and  Chriftian  Liberty  ;  upon  which  leveliingPrin- 
oples  the  common  Sort  of  People,that  compofe  theMul- 
titude,  might  reafonably  hope  to  gain  more,  than  they 
might  fear  to  loofe  •,  and  when  the  Anabaptifts,  the  Au- 
thors and  Promoters  ot  thefe  Principles,  had  form'd  a 
ilrong  Party  in  the  City  of  Munjhr  j  and  fent  &  invited 
all  their  Friends  from  Abroad  in  the  adjacent  Towns  and 
Provinces,  upon  the  Promife  of  the  Gofpel  to  thofe  that 
forfake  Houfcs  mid  Lands  for  Chriji  \  which  upon  the  fore- 
faid  levelling  Principles  they  might  eafily  be  induced  to 
hearken  to;  (and  that  all  this  was  real  FaCl,  is  evident 
from  the  Hi  (lories  of  thofe  Times  ;  )  I  fay,  thefeThings 
confider'd,  it  isnotatairincredible,that  they  might  foon 
^  have 


Chap.  III.  cf  Infant-Baptifm.  i^^ 

have  an  Head-flrong  Multitude  on  their  Side,  by  Means 
whereot  they  might  eafiiy  effed:  that  fudden  Revolution 
in  the  City.  And  tho'  the  Principle  of  Anabaptii'm,  in 
itfelf  confider'd,  might. not  have  that  vifibleTenaency  to 
*'  lead  them  into  fuch  extravagant  Notions  &  Adions-," 
yet  it  was  not  for  the  Credit  of  it,  that  it  was  conneded 
and  interwoven  in  the  Scheme  of  its  Authors,  with  thofe 
other  Principles  of  Sedition  againft  the  State  and  civilOr- 
der,  that  had  that  Tendency  •,  and  in  its  own  Nature  di- 
redlly  tended  to  make  a  Schifm  in  the  Church,  which  is 
not  healed  to  this  Day. 

Lajily^  He  adds,  P.  29.  "That  it  is  evident,  that  fome 
"  of  the  firft  Reformers  were  inclined  to  have  attempted 
"  a  Reformation  in  thisOrdi nance,  tho'  they,  forReafons 
"  beft  known  to  themfelves,  drop'd  it."  Who  they  are 
he  means  by  fome  of  the  firft  Reformers^  know  not  %  but 
thofe  eminent  Men  of  God  who  were  improv'd  as  Inilru- 
ments  of  the  Reformation,are  univerfally  knov/n  to  have 
been  zealous  Aflert  rs  and  Defeaders  of  Infant-Baptifm. 
And  none  of  them,  fo  far  as  appears,  ever  had  it  in  their 
Thoughts  to  abolifh  it  (which  is  what  he  means  by  at- 
tempting a  Reformation  in  that  -Ordinance)  and  to  fugged 
that  they  defifted  from  that  Attempt  forReafons  in  their 
own  Breafts,  is  to  caft  a  Reproach  upon  thofe  Worthies, 
as  if  they  were  fwayed  by  fecret  Views  in  any  Part  of  the 
Reformation,  more  than  by  the  Word  of  God.  No,  the 
Reafons  why  they  declin'd  any  fuch  Attempt,  as  thisAu- 
thor  fpeaks  of,  were  open  and  apparent  from  the  Word  of 
God,  and  the  Pradlice  of  the  Univerfai  Church.  And  if 
Zuinglius^  or  aiy  other,  were  once  more  favourably  in- 
clin'd  to  the  Principles  of  Anabaptifm,  as  they  had  been 
to  many  Superftitions  in  Popery  before  the  Liglit  of  the 
Reformation  brake  forth;  yet  their  declaring  againft  it  af- 
terwards with  fo  much  Zeal,  as  it  is  certain  tb.ey  did, is  an 
Argument  that  upon  deeperSearch&betterLight  receiv'd, 
they  were  fully  convinc'd  of  the  Folly  as  well  as  Unwar- 
rantablenefs  of  thatOpinion.  I  have  now  ihewed,chat  all 
his  Allegations  relating  to  theDifputes  rais'd  by  the  Ana- 


134        '  ^  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  III. 

baptifls  in  Germany^  fince  the  Reformation,  (the  Dates 
whereof  he  is  fo  careful  to  note  that  he  might  prove  thefe 
were  Debates  about  Infant-Baptifm  before  the  Munfler 
Affair)  are  quite  befide  hisPurpofe  -,  thofeDifputes  being 
evidently  included  in  thatPeriod  of  Time,in  which  thofe 
Men  (who  afterwards  might  jullly  be  termed  the  Madmen 
cf  Munfler)  fet  themlelves  in  Oppofition  to  it.  Were  it 
otherwife,  it  wou'd  fignify  very  little  to  his  Caufe,for  he 
wou'd  gain  but  ten  or  twelve  Years  more  (than  he  mif- 
took  the  Author  of  the  Dialogue  to  intend)  to  the  Age 
of  Antipsdobaptifm. 

Secondly^  Let  me  go  on  to  fhew,  that  he  is  as  imperti- 
nent in  his  otherQuotations  to  evince  that  there  wereOp- 
pofers  of  Infant-Baptifm  in  the  Times  that  preceeded  the 
Reformation.  But  here  I  would  previoufly  obferve,that  it 
is  not  fufficient  to  weaken  the  Credit  of  that AiTertion  in 
the  Dialogue  (  that  there  was  no  Strife  or  Debate  in  the 
Church  about  the  PraElife  of  Infant-Baptifm^  till  the  Mad- 
men of  Munlfer  oppofedit  )  to  produce  fome  Inftances  of 
particular  Perfons  that  have  denyed,  or  oppofed  it  in  any 
Age  before  the  Reformation.  But  in  order  to  prove  any 
Thing  contradictory  to  the  mention'd AfTertionjit  is  requi- 
fite  to  produce  good  Evidence  of  fome  fucceffiveBody  of 
Men  in  the  Chriftian  Church,  that  have  rais'd  a  Con- 
troverfy  about  it,  or  have  been  found  in  the  Practice  of 
Adult-Baptifm  only,  (iftj  It  fhould  be  made  evident, 
that  there  has  been  ^  ^6^^  or  Society  of  Men  in  the 
Church,  that  have  denyed  Baptifm  to  Infants,  in  Oppo- 
fition to  theBelief  andPradice  of  the  generality  of  Chrift- 
ians.  For  if  it  be  the  Opinion  only  of  a  few  ftragling 
Individuals,  that  ftart  up  in  one  Age  and  another,  who 
have  Httle  or  no  Influence  in  the  Church,  to  difturb  the 
Peace  of  it  •,  it  can't  with  Reafon  or  Propriety  be  faid, 
that  fuch  Opinion,  or  Pradice,  in  Confequence  of  it,was 
Matter  of  Debate  in  the  Church  ;  unlefs  it  were  efpoufed 
and  maintained  by  any  confiderable  Party  of  Men,  who 
have  fet  themfelves  againft  thePradticoof  the  reft  of  their 
Fellow-Chriftians  in  that  Particular;,  and  raifed  aConteft 

'    '  ^  "  '"■  with 


Chap.  III.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  13/j 

with  them  about  it.  (adly.)  There  fhould  be  Evidence 
of  zfucceffive  Body  of  Men  joining  in  their  Opinion  and 
Pradtice  againfl  Infant-Baptifm.  For  if  it  could  be  made 
to  appear,  that  there  have  been  a  Number  that  have  rifen 
up,  four  or  five  Hundred  Years  before  the  Reformation, 
joyned  in  Society,  who  have  denied  Infant-Baptifm,  and 
renounced  the  Pradtice  of  it ;  yet  if  this  Society  Ihould 
afterwards,  in  an  Age  or  two,  dwindle  away  and  come 
to  nothing  •,  it  might  truly  be  faid  (  notwithilanding  the 
Inflance  of  fuch  a  Society,  which  bears  no  Proportion  to 
the  Univerfal  Church  J  that  Infant-Baptifm  was  notMat- 
ter  of  Debate  in  the  Church  before  the  Reformation,and 
the  Rile  of  the  Anabaptifts.  For  in  the  Cafe  fuppos'd, 
there  might  pafs  two  or  three  Hundred  Years  betore  that 
Period,  in  which  there  would  be  a  profound  Silence  as  to 
any  Difpute  or  Strife  of  that  Kind  in  the  Church  •,  tho* 
it  might  not  be  truly  affirmed,there  never  was  fuch  aDe- 
bate  in  the  Church  betore.  But  in  Cafe  there  were  Evi- 
dence of  fuch  a  Body  or  Society  of  Men,  that  continued 
fucceflively  in  being  down  to  the  Times  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, this  indeed  would  make  up  a  Proof  againfl  the 
Truth  of  what  is  afTerted  in  the  Dialogue. 

But  now  there  is  no  certain  Evidence  of  either  of  thefe 
Requifites  lo  fuch  a  Proof  •,  viz.  That  there  has  been  in 
any  Age  preceeding  the  Reformation,  any  Body  of  Men 
which  have  oppos'd  Infant-Baptifm  ;  much  lefs  that  there 
has  been  a  Succefllon  of  fuch  aBody  down  to  thatPeriod  : 
Of  the  former  there  is  but  probable  Evidence  at  befl:,but 
nothing  certain  •,  Of  the  latter  there  is  noEvidence  at  ail. 
And  if  all  the  Evidence  from  Dr.  Gill's  Quotations  were 
allowed  as  certain  and  folid,  they  would  only  prove  there 
has  been  in  fbme  Ages  paft,  a  Number  of  difunited  Indi- 
viduals, in  fundry  Parts  of  theWorld,  who  have  declared 
againfl  Infant-Baptifm  ;  but  no  fuch  Number  of  Men 
that  have  compofed  a  regular  Body,  or  joined  together 
in  Church  Society,  holding  that  Opinion  :  (I  fliall  except 
but  one  Inftance^  which  is  that  of  the  Peirobruftans,  or 
the  Difciplcs  and  Followers  of  Peter  Brnis  \  of  whom  I 
-  "■     K  4         ""   "~    ■       '~     iiiall 


136        A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  III. 

IhaJlfay  fomething  afterwards)  Much  lefs  do  they  prove  a 
continued  Succeffion  of  fuch  a  Society  for  more  than  one 
Age.  But  all  his  Allegations  ot  Authorities  arefarfrom 
affording  us  the  certain  Evidence  he  pretends  :  They 
have  ail  been  long  ago  examined  by  the  Pasdobaptifl 
Writers,and  have  been  proved  to  be  either  impertinent  or 
groundlefs,  and  evidenced  to  be  Miftakes.  Yet  he  ad- 
vances forward  with  his  Quotations,  as  confidently  as  if 
nothing  had  been  faid  in  Confutation  of  them.  I  lliall 
beftow  a  few  Remarks  upon  them,  to  Ihew  theWeaknefs 
and  Infufficiency  of  his  Proofs  thence. 

The  PalTages  themfelves  have  been  more  largely  con- 
fidered  and  examined  by  others.  There  are  but  two  a- 
mong  all  his  Inffances  that  carry  the  leaft  Shadow  of 
Probability.  I  fhall  firfl  confider  thefe,  and  then  briefly 
touch  on  the  refl. 

The  firfl  is,  ALetter  written  toErafmus  out  of  Bohemia, 
by  one  Ccjlelecius^  dated  Oihk  10.  15 19.  Wherein  he 
gives  an  Account  of  a  certain  Se6t,  called  Pyghards^  who 
had  their  Name,  he  fay?,  from  a  certain  Refugee  of  the 
fame  Nation,  who  came  thithe:  97  Years  before  theDate 
of  the  faid  Letter.  The  PafTage  quoted  thence  is  this, 
"  Such  as  come  over  to  their  Sedt,  mufl  everyone  be 
^'  baptized  a-new  m  meer  Water."  Thefe  Words  taken 
by  themfelves, leave  it  uncertain  (asDr.^<^//hasobfervcd*) 
Whether  they  baptized  a-jiew  fuch  as  came  over  to  their 
Se6l,  either  as  judging  Baptifn  in  Infancy  invalid^  or  as 
judging  allk'aptijm  received  tn  the  corrupt  Way  of  theChurch 
cf  Rome  to  he  fo»  But  confidering  the  Strain  of  theLet- 
ter.  It  appears  pretty  plain,  that  the  latter  was  the  Cafe, 
and  that  the  Reafon  of  their  Re-baptizing  fuch  as  came 
over  to  them  from  Popery,  was,  becaufe  they  efteemed 
popiihBaptifm  corrupted*witk  fomanyfuperffitiousRites, 
to  be  null,  or  not  the  lawful  Chriftian  Baptiim,  and  noc 
becaufe  of  its  being  received  in  Infancy.  For  it  ]s  to  be 
noted^  that  the  Writer  of  the  Letter  reprefents  them  as 
great  Adverfaries  to  the  Church  otRom^  calling  thePope 

and 
^  im,  of  Infitnt-Baptirm,  P*:t  II.  Clmp,  8.  §.  a. 


Chap.  III.  c/ Infant-Baptifm.  1^7 

and  his  Clergy  by  the  Name  of  Antichrifl,  T^heWhore.and 
the  Bea§f  in  the  Revelations^  and  owning  no  other  Autho- 
rity but  that  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  And  the  very  Ex- 
preflion  in  the  PafTage  cited,of  their  being  baptized  a-new 
in  meer  Water ^  plainly  fuggefts  this  to  be  the  Reafon, 
that  they  baptized  with  meer  Water^m  Oppofition  to  the 
impureMixtures  of  Salt,Oyl  and  Spittle,  with  theWater ; 
and  divers  other  fuperflitious  Rites  ufed  by  thePapills  in 
Baptifm,  whereby  the  Ordinance  was  greatly  corrupted, 
and  in  their  Opinion  nullified,  as  fome  others  have  tho't 
likewife.  Therefore  thofe  that  came  over  to  them,  re- 
ceived Baptifm  in  pure  Water,  conformably  to  Chrift's 
Inftitution  •,  and  that  this  was  indeed  theTruth  of  theCafe, 
appears  from  the  Tenor  of  the  whole  Paragraph  whence 
thisCitacion  is  made, which  is  pointed  intirely  againflthe 
popilh  Superftitions.  It  runs  thus,  "  J/:?^_y  believe  or  own 
''  little  or  nothing  of  theSacramems  of  the  Church,  (\\x.  of 
*'  theChurch  of  Rome)  juch  as  come  over  to  their Se£f,muil 
*'  every  One  be  baptized  in  meer  Water,  ^hey  make  no 
*'  Blejfmg  of  the  Salt,  or  of  the  Water,  nor  make  any  Ufe 
*'  of  confecrated  Oyl"  Here  is  no  Intimation  that  they 
difapprov'd  of  their  former  Baptifm,  becaufe  it  was  re- 
ceived in  Infancy,  but  becaufe  (  as  the  Words  ftrongly 
imply  )  they  look'd  on  the  popifh  Baptifms  as  corrupt 
and  invalid. 

And  if  thefe  Pyghards  were  the  fame  with  the  ancient 
Picardsy  as  it  is  thought  they  were,  it  does  not  appear 
that  thefe  latter  were  ever  charged  with  the  Denial  of  In- 
fant-Baptifm.  Dr.  Wall  fhews  from  good  Authorities, 
that  rhey  expreHy  own'd  ii  in  the  Confeffion  they  prefent- 
ed  to  King  Uladiflaus.  *  So  .hat  rhis  Inflance  of  the  Pyg- 
hards, or  Picards,  is  fo  far  from  affording  any  Evidence 
of  their  Agreement  in  Opinion,  or  Praftice  with  the  An- 
tip2edobaptifts,that  it  fcarce  affords  the  lead  Probability 
of  it.  But  it  is  highly  probable,  if  not  certain,  that  they 
were  led  into  the  Praftice  they  are  charged  with,  from 
their  Eifeeai  of  popiih  Baptifm  as  a  Corruption  of  the 

Ordinance 

*  mi 


138         A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.  III. 

Ordinance,  whether  adminiftred  to  Perfons  in  Infancy,  or 
at  adult  Age.  And  though  Dr.  Gill  repeats  this  Inftance 
again,  P.  40.  Yet  he  has  added  no  new  Strength  to  it ; 
but  has  given  it  up,  inEflfed,  in  calHng  them  indifferent- 
ly, Pyghards,  or  Picards  :  And  if  they  were  the- fame  (as, 
it  feems,  is  uncontroverted)  there  is  good  Evidence  that 
they  received  and  own'd  Infant-Baptifm,  as  Dr.  IVall  has 
ihewed  in  the  Place  above-cited.  And  the  fame  Anfwer 
may  fuffice  to  what  he  has  alleg'd  in  the  fame  Page  from 
Scultetus  his  Annals^  on  the  Year  152 8, after  the  Anabap- 
tifls  had  made  fome  Progrefs  in  Germany  •,  who  fays  (  as 
he  has  cited  him  )  "  That  the  united  Brethren  in  Bohe- 
**  mia,  and  other  godly  Perfons  were  Re-baptized,  not 
*'  that  they  patronized  the  Errors  of  the  Anabaptifts." 
Our  Author  adds  inWay  of  Comment  upon  him,  "mean- 
*'  ing  fuch  that  they  were  charged  with,  that  had  noRe- 
**  lation  to  Baptifm."  This  might  pafs  for  Senfe,  if  he 
could  have  proved  Scultetus  to  have  been  an  Antipaedo- 
baptitl  i  otherwife  it  is  vifible  to  any  unprejudic'd  Eye, 
that  he  does  include,  and  chiefly  intend  fuch  Errors  of 
the  Anabaptifls  as  had  a  Relation  to  Baptiim.  For  in 
the  Reafon  given  why,tho'  they  pradiced  Re- baptizing, 
yet  they  did  not  patronize  the  Errors  of  the  Anabaptifis^ 
there  is  not  the  leail  Hint  that  they  difapproved  Baptifm 
in  Infancy  •,  but  as  he  has  exprefTed  it,  "  Becaufe  they 
*'  could  not  fee  how  they  could  otherwife  feparate  them- 
*'  felvesfrom  an  unclean  World  j"  which  m  an  ifellly  refers 
to  the  P'  Hut  ions  of  Popery,  by  which  they  fuppofed  the 
Ordinance  of  Baptifm  was  fo  contaminated  (as  well  as  o- 
ther  Ordinances  of  Chrift,  by  being  turned  into  a  meer 
Piece  of  Pageantry  )  as  to  Ipfe  its  Validity  and  Efficacy  •, 
and  therefore  would  diflinguifh  themfelves  from  that 
corrupt  Party  that  had  the  World  following  them,  by  re- 
ceiving Baptifm  in  ics  Purity  according  to  the  Inflitution 
ofChrift.  And  this  confirms  what  was  before  oblerv'd, 
as  the  Reafon  why  the  Pyghards ^ox  Picards  baptifed  a-new 
fuch  as  came  over  to  them.  Thus  we  fee  his  firfl  Evi- 
dence fails  of  evincing  that  which   he  pretends :  And  it 

".  is 


Chap.  III.  of  Infant- Baptifm.'  139 

is  the  onlyEvldence  he  is  able  to  produce  within  a  Hun- 
dredYears  before  the  Reformation  ;  yea,  I  may  fayThree 
Hundred  Years,  for  the  next  Inftance  he  has  mentioned 
bares  Date  nigh  Two  Hundred  Years  before,  in  the  Be- 
ginning of  the  thirteenth  Century  •,  Anno  Bom.  12 15.  So 
that  it  may  be  faid  truly,  for  ought  that  appears  to  the 
contrary.  That  there  was  no  Debate  in  theChurch  about 
Infant -Baptifm,  at  lead  for  Three  Hundred  Years  before 
the  Reformation. 

Secondly.  The  next  Inftance  among  thofe  which  he  has 
cited,  P.  32.  which  Ipurpofe  to  mention  as  carrying 
fome  Colour  of  Pobability  in  it,  is  that  of  ihtPetrcbru- 
ftans^  fo  named  from  one  Peter  Bruis^  who  began  to  vent 
his  Opinions  in  France  in  the  Country  of  Ddupbin,  about 
the  Year  1 1 26,  near  400  Years  before  the  Reformation : 
"Whether  this  Peter  Bruis,  and  Henry  bis  Follower  andSuc- 
cejfor  (  from  whom  the  Se6l  was  aifo  called  Henricians  ) 
were  Antipsedobaptifts,  that  had  any  Body  or  Society  of 
Men  adhering  to  them  in  that  Opinion  andPra6tice  ?  Or 
whether  they  held  any  Baptifm  with  Water  for  the 
Adult,  and  denied  it  tolnfants  ?  I  fhall  neither  alHrm  nor 
deny  ;  Becaufe  thofe  that  have  purpofely  made  the  ftnd:- 
eft  Search  into  the  Authors  of  thofe  Times,  to  find  out 
the  Truth  of  Things,  as  Mr.  Baxter^  Dr.  fFa'l  Sc  others, 
reprefent  it  as  aMatter  full  of  Intricacy  andUncertainty.  - 

Dr.  fFall  is  indeed  of  Opinion,  That  there  is  fuch  a 
Degree  of  Probability  in  the  AfBrmative,  that  he  is  wil- 
ling to  give  up  this  Inftance  to  the  Antipsedobaptifts,tho' 
he  owns  there  is  no  certain  Evidence  of  it,  but  probable 
at  moft. 

Dr.G/// catches  hold  on  thisConcefTionjand  hy^^Pa.^i. 
^'  Dr.  Wall  allows  thefe  two  Men  ("viz.  Peter  Brtiis  and 
'^  Henry)  to  be  Antip^dobaptifts,  and  fays,  "  J  key  were 
*'  the  fir  ft  Antipadohaptift  Preachers  that  ever  fet  tip  a 
*'  Church  or  Society  of  Men  holding  that  Opinion  againft 
"  Infant -Baptifm^  and  Re -baptizing  fuch  as  had  been  bap- 
"  tizedin  Infancy''  But  he  omits  (as  not  being  for  his 
Purpofej  that  whichDrJF'^//adds  in  the  AimcParrigraph, 

that 


'i4<^  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap,  III. 

that  the  Account  he  gives  of  thofe  two  Men,may  equally 
gratify  the  Quakers,  for  he  believes  them  to  be  the  firji 
likewife  of  all  that  have  owned  the  Scriptures^  that  even 
taught^  that  the  Ufe  of  receiving  the  Lord's  Supper  is  not  to 
he  continued.^  For  this,  and  other  grofs  Errois  were 
charg'd  upon  them  by  their  popiih  Adverfaries  ;  in  whofe 
Writings  only  there  is  all  the  Evidence  that  is  ex*  ant  of 
their  denying  Infant-Baptifm.  And  what  is  tound  in  the 
"Writings  of  Protejiants  to  this  Purpofe,  is  copy'd  from- 
them.  Therefore  "our  Antip^dobaptifts  are  much  be- 
holden to  Dv Wall's  Ingenuity  &  Impartiality  in  making 
this  Conceflion  •,  tho'  at  the  fame  Time,indifferent  iv:en 
muft  be  fenfible  that  theProofs  of  this  Charge  taken  from 
fuch  malicious  Accufers  as  the  Papifts,  art  little  to  be 
depended  on. 

Here  therefore  it  is  be  obferved,in  order  to  our  form- 
ing a  right  Judgment  of  the  Petrobruftans^  or  of  thtWal- 
denfes^  that  arofe  in  a  fhortTime  after  •,  that  about  their 
Time,  or  rather  a  confiderableTime  before  either  of  them 
made  their  Appearance  in  the  World,  there  rofe  up  feve- 
ral  Sedls  in  thofe  Parts  of  the  World  (as  Dr.  Wall  has 
largely  lhewed,t  Jwho,tho'  they  widely  difFer'd  from  one 
another,  and  fome  of  them  held  Opinions  heretical  and 
pernicious,  yet  they  all  joined  together  in  declaiming  a- 
loud  againft  theSuperftitions&  Corruptions  of  theChurch 
cf  Rome  ;  which  excited  the  Spleen  of  the  popifh  Party, 
who  in  their  Writings  againft  them, without  diftinguifh- 
ing  the  Good  from  the  Bad,  were  apt  to  charge  the  beft 
with  the  Errors  of  the  worft.  Their  Oppofition  to  the 
Pope,  and  popifh  Bifliops  and  Priefts,  was  Crime  enough 
in  their  Jndgment  to  deferve  the  Cenfure  of  wicked  He- 
reticks  :  And  fome  of  them  were  really  bad, being  tainted 
with  the  impious  Herefy  of  the  Manichees  %  who  were 
charg'd  with  holding  two  Principles  of  all  Things^  or  two 
Gods  ;  the  one  Good,  the  Author  of  all  Good  ;  the  other 
Evil,  the  Author  of  all  the  Evil  in  the  World  :  The  evil 
Cody  they  faid,  made  the  material  World  j   They  reje^cd 

the 

*  JhU,  Chap.  7.  f .  7.    i-  Ihil  §.  4, 


Chap.  III.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  141 

the  Old  ^eftament^  and  all  the  Books  of  the  new^  except  the 
four  Gofpels  :  they  condemned  all  JVater-Baptifm^  as  like- 
wife  Marriage^  and  the  eating  any  FleJJj^  and  divers  otlier 
impious  arrd  abfurdTenets.  There  were  greatNumbers, 
it  is  raid,of  thefe  Manichees  that  mingled  themfelves  with 
thofe  Sects,  by  whofe  Herefy  they  were  more  or  leis  in- 
fed:ed  ;  for  tho'  the  old  Manichees  that  held  thefe  vile 
Opinions  had  theirRife  in  the  EafternParts  of  theWorld, 
and  had  for  a  long  while  infefted  thofe  Parts,  yet  (zs 
Bijhop  Ujher  relates  from  good  Authors, t J  Conftantine^ 
the  Son  of  Leo  Ifaaurus  Emperor  of  the  Eaft,  having  re- 
covered Melitena,  and  Theodoftopolis^  Cities  of  Armenia^ 
about  the  Year  yc^^^  brought  the  InhabitantSy^r/'/^^jjand 
Armenians  into  Thrace^  and  with  them  a  whole  Rabble 
of  Manichees  -,  who  difperfed  their  heretical  Opinions  in 
thofe  Parts.  And  many  Years  after,  under  the  Reign  of 
John  Limifces  in  the  tenth  Century^  vafl  Numbers  of  the 
Manichees  in  the  Eall,  were  at  the  Requefl  of  Tloeodorus 
Bifhop  of  Aniioch^  to  the  Emperor,tranfplanted  into  the 
Weftern  Parts,  into  "Thrace^  and  from  thence  into  the 
neighbouring  Countries  oi  Bulgaria  &  Sclavonia,vjhQnce. 
their  Herefy  came  to  be  propagated  into  Lo?nbardy^  and 
into  the  Southern  Parts  of  France^  where  it  greatly  prc- 
vail'd  (great  Numbers  embracing  itj  and  continu'd  'till 
the  Time  of  Peter  Bruis,  and  the  Rife  of  the  JValdeufes, 
And  the  feveral  Seds  that  had  been  form'd,  or  were  at 
that  Time  often  fpringing  up,  'tis  obferved,  had  moil  of 
them  aTinclure  of  the  Manich^an  Herefy  in  them  ;  And 
tho'  there  was  a  great  Number  of  found  pious  Chriftians, 
who  kept  their  Purity,  and  witnefTed  againft  the  Romifii 
Idolatries  &  Superftitions,fuch  as  have  been  fince  known 
by  the  Name  of  the  Waldenfes^  yet  their  popifli  Adverfa- 
ries  writing  againil  them,  and  lumping  them  with  the 
other  Sedls,  did  not  fcruple  to  charge  them  with  the  im- 
pious Herefies  of  the  Manichees  \  as  Bijhop  JJfim  hath 
fully  fhewed.* 
Hence  arifcs  the  uncertainty  of  the  Truth  of  what  Is 

objedled 
:t  DeSucceffione  ^  ftatu  Ecdef,  Chap.  8.  §.  1 7.    *  /^/V.Ch.  6.  &  8. 


142         A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.  III. 

objefted  againft  the  Petrobruftans^  by  Petrus  Cluniacenfis^ 
or  the  Abbot  of  C/zi!^«y,and  other  popifli Writers  ;  whether 
their  being  charged  with  the  denial  of  Infant- Baptifm  be 
a  true  Accufation,  or  a  Slander  call  on  them  by  the  Pa- 
fifts  ;  for  there  is  no  Account  they  have  given  of  them- 
felves  extant  in  any  of  their  own  confelTing,  that  I  have 
ever  known  or  heard  of,  as  there  is  of  the  IValdenfes  ♦,  un- 
lefs  they  foon  after  came  over  to  the  PFaldenfes,and  incor- 
porated with  them,  and  forfook  their  Error  of  denying 
the  Baptifm  of  Infants  (if  they  ever  held  it)  which  is  not 
unlikely  ;  for  Dr.  fVall  fays,  "  That  Opinion  of  the 
«c  Petrobruftans  feems  to  have  been  in  a  fhort  Time  ex- 
•'  tinguifhed  and  forgotten."*     If  it  was  a  trueAccufati- 
on,  then  for  the  fame  Reafon  we  ought  to  admit  the 
Truth  of  the  other  Accufations  brought  againft  them  by 
the  fame  Men  •,  and  thereby  it  will  appearjthat  they  were 
guilty  of  fuch  vile  Errors,  as  rcndred  them  unmeet  for 
any  Chriftian  Communion.     And  fo  I  doubt,  but  little 
Credit  will  arife  to  our  Antip^dobaptifts  by  owning  them 
for  PredecefTors.     For  befides  the  Denial  of  Infant-Bap- 
tifm,  they  are  charged  by  Peter  Abbot  of  Clugny^  with 
holding,  that  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  is  not 
to  be  adminiftred  fince  Cbriji's  I'ime^^nd  that  it  is  a  mocking  . 
of  God  tofing  in  the  Church,  \\     If  they  were  the  fame  Sort 
of  Men,  that  St,  Bernard  inveighs  againft,in  his  Sermons 
on  the  Canticles  (as  Dr.  Gill  fuppofes.  Pa.  31.)   tho  he 
calls  them  by  no  Name,    but  fays,   they  call  themfelves 
Apflolicks  \  it  is  plain  they  had  imbib'd  the  Principles  of 
the  Manichees  -,   tor  he  fays  not  only,that  they  laugh  at  us 
for  baptizing  Infants^  (which  onJyDr.  Gill  hds  cited  -,  ibid, 
as  a  Precedent  to  juftify  his  own  Se(5l)  And  fo  did  thofe 
Manichees  (becaufe  they  renounced  and  derided  allWater- 
Baptifm)  And  fo  do  the  fakers  now,  as  well  as  xhtAn- 
tipd^dohaptifts  deride  the  Baptifm  of  Infants  ;  but  he  char- 
ges them  with  holding  the  more  grofs  Opinions  of  the 
Manichees.,  as  that  they  held  it  unlawful  to   Swear  in  any 
other  Cafe  -,  but  being  examined  of  their  'Te?tetSy  they  would 

fwear 

*  pyalP^  Hlft,  Part.  IL  Ch,  7,  §.  7.    ||  Cited  by  Dr,  Wall,  Ibid.  §.  5. 


Chap.  III.  vf  Infant  Baptifm.  14^ 

[wear  and  for  [wear  in  the  denial  of  them.  2.  n  at  they 
held  Marriage  a  wicked  Uncleannefs  (only  fome  of  themfaid 
that  Virgins  might  marry  and  none  elfe)  and  yet  they  kept 
Company  with  Women  in  a  Way  that  gave  great  Scandal  ^^c, 
^.nat  they  held  the  eating  ofallFlefh  &c,  unlawful.  /^.That 
they  owned  not  the  Old  feftament,  and  fome  of  them^  none 
of  the  New  but  the  Gofpels.f  Now  fee  the  unfairnefs  of 
Dr.  Gill  in  quoting  only  that  Article  that  relates  to  the 
Baptifm  of  Infants,  bearing  his  Reader  in  Hand,  that 
thefe  Men  were  of  the  fame  Perfuafion  with  thofe  of  his 
own  Sed.  When  it  is  evident,  that  if  they  held  thofe 
otherPrinciples,  they  are  equally  charged  with  by  the  fame 
Author,  they  were  infedled  with  the  Herefy  of  the  Mani- 
cheeSy  and  fo  derided  all  Water-Baptifm,  only  becaufe  it 
was  the  general  Pradlice  in  the  Catholick  Church  to  ad- 
iminiiler  it  to  Infants,  they  made  that^  peculiarly,  the 
jMatter  of  their  Scoff  and  Derifion. 
j  The  fame  Sort  of  Heriticks  were  probably  intended  by 
\Evervinus^  of  the  Diocefe  of  Cologne^  of  whom  he  gives 
Ian  Account  in  a  Letter  he  wrote  to  St.  Bernard,  a  little 
before  the  Year  1 140,  defcribing  them  by  their  Tenets, 
uhey  condemn,  he  fays,  the  Sacraments, except  Baptifm  only, 
\and  this  only  in  thofe  who  are  come  to  Age  &c.  ThisParc 
of  the  Letter,  our  Author  quotes  out  of  Dr.  Wall ;  but 
artfully  conceals  the  other,  which  is  to  be  found  in  the 
fame  Writer,  and  which  ihews  them  to  have  been  Mani- 
chees,  viz.  All  Marriage  they  call  Fornication,  except  that 
which  is  between  two  Virgins  ^cl  Which  was  one  of  the 
Principles  of  the  Manichees,  as  we  have  obferved. 

There  is  no  certain  Knowlege  to  be  obtain'd,  whether 
::he  Things  laid  to  the  Charge  of  this  People,  {viz.  the 
Petrobrufians)  by  the  Papifts  be  true  or  falfe.  But  I  in- 
fiil  upon  it,  there  is  no  Reafon  why  we  fhould  admit  the 
Charge  of  their  denying  Infant-Baptifm  to  be  true  &jufl:, 
without  admitting  the  other  odious  Errors  and  Heref  es 
charg'd  upon  them  by  the  fameMen  to  be  truealfo.  And 
;f  this  be  admitted  to  be  the  Cafe,  one  would  think,  that 

our 

t  Cited  Ibid,    X  Cited  Ibid. 


144-"         ^  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right       Chap.  III. 

our  Antip^dobaptifts  fliould  not  be  fond  of   any  Affinity 
or  Agreement  with  fuch  People,  unlefs  the  darlingPoint 
of  Antipaedobaptifm  be  of  more  Weight  &  Account  with 
them,  than  the  very  Fundamentals  of  natural  &  revealed 
Religion,  which  are  fubverted  by  the  forementioned  Ma- 
mchaan  Principles.     But  indeed,there  is  but  littleAgree- 
ment  with  them  in  that  very  Point ;  for  tho'  they  equally 
hold  that  Infants  are  not  to  be  baptiz'd,  yet  they  widely 
differ  as  to  the  Grounds    and  Reafons  of  their  denying 
Baptifm  to  them.     The  Petrobrufians  maintain'd,    that 
no  Infants  could  be  faved,  therefore  it  is  in  vain  to  bap- 
tize them.     TheirTenet  in  this  Particular,  as  Peter  Ab- 
bot of  Clugny  Cwho  wrote  againft  them)  has  reprefented 
it  is,   in  Brief,   to  this  Effett.  %     "  Chrift  fays  in  the 
«'  Gofpel,  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  fh all  be  faved^ 
*'  but  he  that  believeth  not^fhall  be  damned.     From  thefe 
«'  Words  of  our  Saviour  it  is  plain,  that  none   can   be 
"  faved,  unlefs  he  believe  and  be  baptized,  that  is,have 
*'  both  Chriflian  Faith  &  Baptifm  ;  for  not  one  of  thefe, 
«'  but  both  together  do  fave.     So  that  Infants,tho'  they 
*'  be  by  you  baptized,  yet  fince  by  Reafon  of  their  Age 
"  they  cannot  believe,  are  not  faved."      And  therefore 
concluded,  that  the  wafliing  their  Bodies  with  Water  was 
an  idle  and  ufelefs  Ceremony,  fince  their  being  baptize 
avails  nothingtotheirSalvation,  being  uncapable  of  Faith 
But  our  prefent  Antipsedobaptifts  do  not,  as  far  as  ap 
pears,  agree  to  this  Opinion,   but  hold  the  direct:  Con 
trary,  that  Infants  dying  unbaptized  are  faved,  and  have| 
no  Need  of  Baptifm  ;    nor  are  they  ever  the  more  faveds 
for  their  being  baptized  \  as  if  their  Salvation  were  a  na- 
tural Right,  and  depended  not  on  theWill  &Wifdomof 
Chrift  in  the  Difpenfation  of  it,  according  to  his  own  In- 
ftitution.     But  it  mud  be  confefs'd,  that  if  thofe  Words 
of  our  Saviour  in  the  Gofpel   be  underflood  to  compre- 
hend Infants  (otherwife  than  as  they  are  included  in  the 
ProfelTion  of  their  believing  Parents  which  gives  them  a 
Covenant  Right  with  them  to  theOrdinance  of  Baptifm) 

the 

t  As  cited  by  Dr,  Wall    IhiL 


Chap.IIL  of  Infant-Blptlfnl.  145 

rte  Conclufion  which  the  Petrobrufians  drew  from  them, 
feems  much  more  direct  and  natural,That  Iniants  cannon 
be  faved,  than  that  of  the  Antipsedobaptifts,  That  they 
ought  not  to  be  baptized,  becaufe  they  cannot  believe  ; 
for  the  before- mention'd  Declaration  of  our  Saviour  does 
more  exprefly  make  their  beHeving  neceflary  toSalvatjon, 
than  unto  Baptifm  :  And  if  our  Saviour  meant,  by  thajC 
Prerequifite  of  Faith,  to  exclude  Infants  from  Baptifm,  as 
ourAdverfaries  pretend, 'tis  an  unavoidable  Confequence, 
that  he  equally  intended  to  exclude  them  from  Salvation. 
Therefore  I  fee  no  Reafon  but  thai  o\jiV  Antip^dobaptifls 
(  in  Confequence  of  their  Principles  J  mull  come  inco  an 
Agreement  with  the  old  Fetrohrufians^  in  that  uncharita- 
ble Opinion,that  excludes  ^all  Infants  from  Salvation  s  if 
the  Charge  exhibited  againfl  them  be  true. 

But  nov/  on  the  other  Hand,  If  it  be  a  Slander  call  on 
them  by  popifh  Malice,  taking  Occafion  from  the  Inter- 
mixture of  fome  Manichees  among  them,  to  tax  them  un- 
defervedly  with  theirOpinions  \  this  Inftance,  with  others 
that  depend  on  the  fame  Foundation,  makes  nothing  for 
Dr.  Gill\  Purpofe.  And  tho'  his  Evidence  from  it  is  very 
precarious,  in  P^egard  of  the  Uncertainty  we  are  under  as 
to  this  Matter,  yet  he  concludes  hence,  after  hisManner, 
with  the  higheft  Degree  of  AlTurance,  P.  33.  "  That  it: 
"  is  out  of  all  Doubt,  that  this  was  a  Matter  of  Debate 
*'  400  Years  before  ^:i^Madmen  ofMunffer  fet  themiqlves 
"  againft  it." 

'Dv.JVall^  tho'  he  is  of  Opinion,  that  this  one  Sedl  of 
the  Petrohrufians  did  peculiarly  deny  Infant-Baptifm,  yet 
obferves,  that  thofe  P^vdobabtifts  who  refus'd  to  give  Cre- 
dit to  it,  as  being  fupported  only  by  popifh  Evidence, 
have  two  Things  to  plead,  which  he  owns  are  very  confi- 
derable  (and  which,  I  think,carry  fo  muchWeight  in  the 
Cafe,  as  might  juflly  abate  the  Confidence  of  thofe  of  tlic 
contrary  Opinion)  which  are,  Fir§f,  "  That  it  is  com- 
*'  mon  for  Men  to  flander  their  Adverfaries  about  the 
*'  Opinions  they  hold." —  And  it  has  been  the  known^ 
P^acTtice  of  the  Papifts  to  do  fo,  in  a  peculiar  Manner. 

L  Secofidiy^ 


14^  ^  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  III. 

Secondly^  "  That  we  ought  in  all  Rcafon  either  to  deny 
"  Credit  to  thefe  pop idi  Writers  concerning  thefe  Men, 
•'  or  elfe  to  believe  them  in  one  Thing  as  well  as  another. 
"  If  we  allow  them  for  good  Witnefles,  then  thofe  that 
*'  they  dcfcribe,  were  Men  of  fuch  unfound  Opinions  in 
"  other  I'hings,  as  that  no  Church  would  be  willing  to 
"  own  them  tor  Predeceflbrs  :  But  if  we  account  them 
*'  Slanderers,  we  oudit  not  to  conclude  from  theirTefti- 
*'  niony,that  any  of  thefeMendeniedlnfant-Baptifmj&c." 
And  he  adds,  "  Thefe  Confiderations  do  in  a  great 
"  Meafurejuilify  thofe  Pd'dobaplijis^  who  maintain  that 
"  there  is  no  certain  Evidence  of  any  Church  or  Society 
*'  of  Men,  that  oppos'd  Infant- Baptifm,  till,  thofe 
*'  Germany^'' ^  dihoxxt  the  Year  1522.  But  fuppofing 
with  Dr.  PVall^  it  is  probable,  thofe  Petrohrujians  were 
Antipjedobaptilts  in  Principle  andPradice,  about  which 

1  confefs  it  is  fcarce  worth  while  to  contend.  They 
were  a  fmall  and  obfcure  Se6f,  that  had  their  Rife  about 
400  Years  before  the  Reformation,  and  tho'  Peter  Bruis 
and  Henry  his  Succeflbr  might  gather  a  Number  of  Fol- 
]owers,to  compofe  a  Society,or  fomething  like  aChurch  ; 
yet  they  conunued  but  a  fhortTime,  fcarce  till  the  n-ext 
Age,  but  were  either  foon  after  converted  from  their  Er- 
ror, or  difpers*d,  and  difappear'd  ;  nothing  more  (as  far 
as  can  be  learnt)  being  ever  known  or  heard  of  them,  for 

2  or  300  Years  before  the  Rife  of  the  German  Anabap- 
tiffs.  So  that  they  fcarce  deferve  the  Name  of  anExcep- 
tion  from  the  Univerfal  Church,every  where  diffus'd,and 
of  1500  Years  Duration.  In  all  which  Time  it  can't  be 
pretended, with  any  Ground  of  Probability,that  there  has 
been  any  otherBody  of  Men  profeffedly  appearing  againfl 
Infant-Baptifm,  nor  any  one  Man,  not  even  Tertullian 
(  of  whom  before  )  upon  the  Principles  of  the  moderri' 
A.ntipcedob:ipti(ls. 

I  promifcd  to  touch  brieBy  on  the  other  Inftanccs  our 
Author  has  produced  under  this  Head.  Thofe  which  he 
has  rnentikon'd  about  ths  '.I  nBcs  of  th^,  FetrQh'ufians^  or  a 

little. 


Chap.  III.  of  Infant-Baptlfm."  ^Ai 

little  after5rely  on  the  fameCredit  with  what  is  faid  of  that 
Se6t,  njiz.  That  of  popifh  Accufation  :  And  the  fame 
Anfwer  may  fuflice  to  them,  as  to  the  other.  The  Con- 
demnation of  Teter  Bruis^  and  Arnold  of  Brefcia^  by  the 
Lateran  Council,  A.D.  1 139,/^r  denying  Infafit-Baptifmj, 
(P. 3 2.)  may  be  accounted  for,  the  fame  Way. 

St. Bernard's  Complaint,  in  a  Letter  dated  in  the  Year 
1 147,  to  the  Earl  of  St.Gyles^  of  his  harbouring  Henry  an 
Hcretick,  by  whom  the  Infants  of  Chriftians  were  bindred 
from  the  Life  of  Chrift^  the  Grace  Baptifm  being  denied 
thcraficz.  ('P.3 1.)  was  in  all  Probability  grounded  on  the 
Report  he  had  received  from  malicious  Accufers,and  not 
on  any  certain  Knowledge  he  had  himfelf  of  that  Matter, 
in  charging  him  and  hisFollowers  with  oppofing  theBap- 
tifm  of  Iniants.  St.  Bernard  (  (mh  Fuller  )  '^  taking  it 
^'  rather  from  the  Reboundjthan  firftRife,  ehargeth  them 
''  therewith."  %  As  to  the  Letter  of  the  Bp.  of  Aries  in 
Provence  to  Pope  Innocent  the  third  f  cited  by  our  Author, 
P.  29,  30)  reprefenting  to  him,  "  That  fome  Hereticks 
*'  there  had  taught,  that  it  was  to  no  Purpofe  to  baptize 
*'  Children,  fince  they  could  have  no  Remiflion  of  Sins 
*'  thereby,  &c."  it  may  be  faid,  thofe  Hereticks  might 
be  fome  of  the  Manichean  Se6ts,  for  ought  that  appears 
to  the  contrary.  Or  perhaps,  they  were  fome  Remnants 
of  the  Fetrohrufians^  of  whom  enough  b^s  been  faid  al- 
ready. As  for  thofe  Gafcoigners  (^mentioned  in  the  fame 
Page)  that  came  over  into  England  under  Gerhardus  and 
Dulcinus,  their  Leaders,  in  the  Year  1158,  he  knows  not 
what  to  make  of  them  from  his  Authors.  "  Mr.  Fox. 
"  fuppofes,  they  had  received  fome  Light  of  Know- 
*'  ledge,  of  the  JValdenfes. — Rapin  calls  thcvnGermanHG- 
**  reticks —  But  William  of  Newbourgh  calls  them  Ptib- 
"  licans —  "Which  was  theName  of  oneSed  of  xhtMani- 
chces^  who  denied  allWater-Baptifm  *  But  it  feems,  the 
Writer  lad  mentioned  comes  nearer  our  Author's  Vvifh  : 
for  he  relates,   that   thefe  Men    "  being  interrogated, 

L  2  aj; 

t  Fuller's  Holy  War.    Book  III.  Ch,  2®. 


148         A  Lefme  cf  the  Livine  Right        CfiAP.III. 

"  at  a  Council  held  at  Oxford^  concerning  theirFaith,faid 
"  perverle  lliings  concerning  the  divine  Sacraments," 
(  then,  befure,  they  were  Antip^edohaptifts  )  "  detefling 
"  holyBaptifm,  the  Eucharift,  and  Marriage  ;'*  therefore 
they  were  as  certainlyManichees,  orQuakers,inPrinciple. 
What  fignifies  then  the  Manufcript  Qtiotation  from  Ra- 
dulph  the  Monk  (which,  for  ought  he  knows,  might  be  a 
monkiHi  Legend)  charging  them  with  afierting,  "  That 
''  Lifants  ought  not  to  be  baptized,  till  they  come  to  the 
"  Age  of  Underflanding "  ( which  h  no  more  than 
what  a  Manichee  might  fay  then^  and  a  Quaker  now  (tho* 
they  both  difuwn  all  Water  Baptifm)  as  well  as  thofethat 
deny  Infant-Baptil'm  peculiarly  )  when  it  plainly  appears 
by  the  printed  Account  he  had  cited,  that  thefe  Men  re- 
jected both  the  Sacraments  of  the  New-Teftament,  de- 
tefling holy  Baptifin  and  the  Eiicharifi  I  Our  Author,  it 
feems,  is  put  to  hard  Shifts  to  find  outPrecedents  for  his 
Opinion  in  thofe  Times,  -when,  rather  than  fail,  he  will 
admit  into  the  Number,  fuch  a  Sort  of  People,  who  ap- 
pear to  be  at  a  much  nearer  Agreement  with  iht^akerSy 
than  with  the  Antipaedobaptiitj. 

But  he  has  an  harder  Tafk  yet,  to  produce  Examples 
to  his  Purpofe  before  theTimes  of  the  Pet7'obruJians.  The 
few  Infkances  he  has  meiptioned,  I  fhall  alfo  briefly  confi- 
di^'S.  The  firft  is  that  of  ^r^^/2^,Biihop  o^  Angers  luFrancey 
^nd  Btrengariu:^  Archdeacon  of  the  fame  Church.  All  the 
Evidence  that  either  of  thefe  opposed  Infant- Baptifm,re- 
liesupon  common  Fame,  gather'd  from  a  Letter  wrote 
by  Deodwin  Blihop  oi  Liege ,  to  Henry  I.  King  oi^  France  ; 
which  runs  thus,  as  he  has  cited  it —  "  There  is  aReporc 
"  come  out  ol  France^  which  goes  through  all  Germany^ 
**  that  thefe  two  do  maintain  that  the  Lord's  Body  (  the 
**  Hofl)  is  not  the  Body,  but  a  Shadow  or  Figure  of  the 
<'  Lord's  Body.  And  that  they  do  difannul  lawful  Mar- 
**  riage  •,  and  as  far  as  in  them  lies,  overthrov;  the  Bap- 
*^  turn  of  Infants."  But  what  is  chieRy  faid  in  Hiilory 
concerning  tliisAffair,relatcs  only  or  chiefly  toBerejigariir^ 
who  appear'd  in  tiieekventh  Century  (abowc  lOo  Years 

before 


Chap.  III.  of  Infant- Baptlfm.  i^^j 

before  the  Petrohruftans  and  Waldenfes  )  to  oppofe  Tran- 
fubftantiatidn,  or  the  Do6trine  of  the  corporal  Prefence  of 
our  Lord  in  the  Sacrament  of  his  Supper  ;  which  was 
then  fliffly  maintained  inr  the  Church  of  Rome,  And 
this  is  all,  that  appears  to  be  the  Truth,  in  that  Report 
mentioned  in  Deodwin's  Letter.  For  Berengarius  had 
manyAdverfaries,and  manyCouncils  held  againAhim  and 
his  Followers  in  thatAge.  But  Bp.fT/^^r,  who  has  trac'd 
his  Profecution  thro'  feveral  Councils,  affirms,  that  in  the 
whole  Procefs  his  Adverfaries  had  no  Controverfy  with 
him  about  Anabaptifm,  *  Nor  does  it  appear,  that  either 
Bruno  or  Berengarius  were  ever  charg'd  with  the  Denial 
of  Infant-Baptifm  :  Therefore  wc  may  take  it  as  aThing 
morally  certain,that  they  did  not  hold  thatError  *,  other- 
wife  their  imbittered  Adverfaries  would  not  have  fail'd  to 
have  charg'd  them  with  it.  Nor  can  it  be  inferred  from 
the  Report  that  Deodwin  mentions,  which  is  generally 
exprefs'd,^-^^/  they  did  as  far  as  in  them  lay  ^overthrow  the 
Baptifm  of  Lfants.  He  does  not  fay,  they  denied  it.  And 
jf  there  were  any  Foundation  for  that  Report, Bp.  UJher  is 
of  Opinion,  it  might  arife  from  their  oppofing  thit  cor- 
ruptDoftrine  of  theChurch  of  R^;;'f,That  theSacriments 
confer  Grace  ex  opere  operate^  i.  e.  by  the  meef  Work 
done-,  which  might  give  aHand'e  to  the  Papiiis,  to  re- 
proach them  with  overthrowing  theSacrament  ofBaptifm^ 
which  was  ufually  adminifler'd  to  Infants.  And  he  quotes 
Alanus  (in  his  3dBookagain(ltheHereticks  of  h]srime)fo 
underilanding  them,as  if  they  had  faid.  That  Baptifm  has 
no  Efficacy^  either  in  Infants  or  the  Adult  ;  and  that  there- 
fore Men  are  not  bound  to  receive  Bapnfm.  f  So  that  if  that 
Ground  of  the  Report  (  which  had  luch  a  fmifler  Inter- 
pretation put  upon  It  by  the  Papifts )  were  true,  it  is  no- 
thing at  all  to  the  Purpofe.  And  what  Guitmundus  fays, 
who  was  one  of  Btrengarius\  Adverfaries,  (  whom  our 
Author  quotes,  P.  34.)  That  he  did  not  teach  rightly  con- 
cerning the  Baptifm  of  Infants^  dec.  he  took  wholly  on 
the  Credit  of  the  forefaid  Letter  of  Deodwm  i  and  there- 

L  3  foi'C 

t  D«  SvwillQn?  ^  flatu  Ecd,  Csp,  \1I.  J.  37,     f  Bid, 


1 5Qi  ^  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  Ill, 

fore  needs  FaO  further  Anfwer. —  The  next  is  a  PafTage 
which  Mr.  Stennet  recites  from  Dr.  Jllix^  and  our  Author 
from  him,  concerning  ont  €undulphus  d.n6  his  Followers, 
who  being  examined  at  the  Synodjby  the  Bp.  o'iCambray^ 
in  the  Year  1025,  denied  that  Baptilm  was  profiiable  to 
Infants,  and  gave  fome  Reafons  againft  their  Baptifm. 
jVnd  our  Author  adds,  "  Dr.  PFall  indeed  reprefents 
*'  thefe  Men, the  Difciples  of  Gundulphus^  as  ^takers  and 
^'  Manicbees  m  the  Point  of  Baptifm."  (/i?ii.)  One  may 
here  fee  an  Inftance  of  the  Craft  of  thefe  Writers,  in  clip- 
ping their  Quotations  to  ferve  their  ownCaufe.  DrJVall 
had  correcSled  theUnfairnefs  of  Mr. Stennet ^m  quoting  only 
that  PaiTage  from  Dr.  AlIix'sBook  relating  to  thofeMen, 
'viz.  their  denying  that  Baptifm  could  do  any  good  to  Infants  5 
leaving  out  what  follows  in  the  fame  Author,  viz.  "  That 
^f  in  the  fame  Examination,  being  further  interrogated, 
<'  the  Men  confefs'd,  that  they  thought  Water-Baptifm 
««  of  no  Ufe  or  NeceiTity  to  any  ons,  Infant  or  Adult."'^ 
So  that  it  is  Dr.  Alli^  indeed  (from  whom  theQuotation 
was  made  )  that  reprefents  thofe  Men  as  ^takers  or  Ma- 
nichees  in  the  Point  of  Baptifm,  holding  that  Water-Bap- 
tifm  is  ot  no  Ufe  to  any.  But  our  Author  brings  inDr. 
Wall  2,^  correding,  not  Mr.5/#.^;/^/'j  Partiality,  but  rather 
the  learned  Dr.  AUix  his  Account  of  thofe  Men  :  And  fo 
is  rather  more  unfair  &  diringenuous,thanMr,6"/^;/;/f/.  Dr. 
Gill  having  feen  the  Corredion,  yet  perfifts  in  the  Fal- 
lacy put  upon  uhe  Reader,  and  then  goes  on  vaunting 
from  his  abufed  Auu  ors,  (ibid.)  *^  So  we  have  Teftimo- 
^^  nies,  that  Paedobaptifm  was  oppos'd  500  Years  before 
^''  the  Affair  of  Mmifier:' 

In  the  next  Place,he  takes  a  large  Stride,  from  the  ele- 
venth, up  to  the  fourth  Century  (not  being  able  to  find 
in  the  intervening  Centuries  one  fingle  Inllance,  that  he 
could  v/ith  the  lead  Shew  of  Probability  pretend,  v/as  an 
Oppofer  of  P.-edobaptifm,  for  theSpace  of  more  than  600 
Years)  and  fays,  P.  34,  35.  ''  If  the  Pelagians,  the  Do- 
t^  mliffs^  and  L^a/^n^/zj  were  againil  Infant -Baptifm,  as 

^l  fever^l 

y  m.  of  I'rf.  Bap,  ?u  JL  ci}.  7.  §.5, 


Chap.  III.  «?/' Infant- Baptifm.  151 

*^  feveral  Paedohaptift Writers  affirm,  this  carries  theOp- 
*'  poficion  to  it  Itill  higher."  What  Pasdobaptift  Wri* 
ters  confirm  this,  I  know  not :  It  is  poflible,  however, 
fome might  bcinduc'd  to  allow  it5from  fome  miflakenEx- 
preffions  in  Authors  concerning  the  Bonatifts  their  being 
termed  Anahapifis^  becaufe  of  their  Pra6lice  of  Re-bap- 
tizing fuch  as  came  over  to  theirSed.  He  might  as  well 
have  added  the  Arians  to  the  Number,  who  have  been  by 
fomeWriters  z'^Vi^Anahaptifts,,  for  the  fame  Reafon  j  not 
becaufe  they  difapproved  of  the  Baptifm  of  Infants,  but 
difagreeing  with  the  Orthodox  in  theDodrine  of  theTri- 
nity,in  the  Name  whereof  Baptifm  was  admini(lrcd,they 
re-baptized  fuch  as  embrac'd  their  Error,  and  came  over 
to  their  Communion.f  The  Miilake  concerning  theP^- 
lagians  might  arife  from  their  Denial  of  original  Sin  in 
Infants.  Therefore  Pelagius  is  charged  by  fome  with 
denying  Infant-Baptifm,  becaufe  he  denied  that  which 
was  reputed  by  the  Church  the  Ground  and  Reafon  of  it. 
This  Charge  Pelagius  difown'd,  and  complain'd  of  it  as 
a  Slander  (as  has  been  fhewn)  and  St.  Aujlin  argu'd  a- 
gainll  the  Pelagians  from  the  Baptifm  of  Infants,  as  ex 
confeffo^  to  the  puzling  and  confounding  their  Caufe. 
The  Donatifis  and  Luciferians  were  in  a  State  of  Schifm 
from  the  Catholick  Church ;  and  fo  might  re-baptize 
fuch  as  came  over  to  their  Party  *,  as  it  is  certain  the 
Bonatifts  did,  efteeming  all  Baptifm  adminiftred  in  the 
Catholick  Church,  whether  to  Infants  or  Adults,  invalid  ; 
and  not  becaufe  of  any  Diilike  they  had  to  the  Baptifm  of 
Infants.  And  there  is  moreover  good  Evidence,that  the 
Bonatifts  were  in  the  Pra'ftice  of  Infant-Baptifm.  Pela- 
giusy  in  his  Confeflion  &  Letter  fent  to  Pope  Innocent  the 
firll(which  I  have  before  cited)  declares,that  henever  knew 
or  heard  of  any  CatholicK  or  Heretick  that  would  deny 
Baptifm  to  Intajits  :  It  is  then  paft  all  reafonableDoubt, 
that  none  of  the  Se6ts,  here  mentioned,oppos'd  it.  In  the 
mean  Time,  I  cannot  but  obfcrve^  that  our  Author  is 
not  troubled  with  over-much  Modcfty  9  otherv/ife  he 

L  4  n}iQ.hc 

t  S«e  Dr.  Tlalh  Hig^  Pt.  II.  Chi*  4..  f.  ^,.  3v 


'i'52'        '  ^A  Defence  of  the  Divm  Right        Chap.  Ill, 

might  have  hiufh'd  at  the  Thought  of  admitting  thofe 
Hereticks  and  Schifmaticks  into  the  Catalogue  of  his 
pretended  PredecefTors.  He  thinks  it  ftrange,  that  fince 
it  had  *'  not  its  EftabHfhment  till  the  Times  of  Auflin^ 
there  fhould  be  none  to  fet  themfelves  againft  it."  P-SS- 
But  to  fay,  that  Infant- Baptifm  had  not  its  Eft abli foment 
till  the  l^imes  of  Auflin^  is  to  take  a  Liberty  to  fay,  not 
what  theTruth  of  Things  requires,  but  what  pleafes  him 
beft  ;  without,  and  againft  all  Evidence  fromAntiquity^ 
which  has  been  in  Part  fbut  fufficiently)  fhewed.  And. 
therefore  theCaufeof  hisWonderingisagroundlefsFancy. 
For  which Realbn,  I  don't  at  all  wonder  that  he  is  fo  lame 
and  defedive  in  his  Proofs,  that  there  were  any  fuch  ;  for 
neither  Dr.  Gill^  nor  any  other  Antipaedobaptift,  has 
been  able  to  produce  any  good  Evidence  of  fo  much  as 
one  Man,  either  Contemporary  with  Auflin^  or  for  fix  ix 
feven  Hun.jred  Years  after,  that  fet  hi rnfelf  againft  In- 
fant-Eaptifm,  which  (in  Cafe  it  had  not  been  eflablilhed 
in  the  Practice  of  the  Church  before  Aufiin  appeared) 
had  been  the  ftrangeft  Thing  of  all. 

But  he"  has  not  yet  done  j  There  is,  it  feems,oneThing 
more  that  he  thinks  favours  his  Conceit,  that  is,  a  Canon 
of  the  Council  held  at  Carthage  in  the  Year  418,  which 
is  to  this  Effeel,  as  he  has  rendered  it  :  "  Alfo  it  is  our 
*'  Pleafure,  that  whoever  denies,  that  new-born  Infants 
*'  are  to  be  baptized ;  or  fays,  they  are  indeed  to  be 
-*^  baptized  for  the  Remiffion  of  Sins,  and  yet  that  tijey 
"  derive  no  original  Sin  from  Adam^  to  be  expiated  by 
"  the  wafhing  ot  Regeneration  5 — Let  him  ht  Anathema'^ 
(ibid.)  This  Council  was  held  againft  the  Pf%/^//j,  and 
the  Canon  cited  is  plainly  pointed  againft  their  tierefyj 
who  fDwn'd  the  Baptifm  of  Infants,  and  yet  denied  origi- 
nal Sin  in  them  that  needed  thatWaihing.  But  he  aflcs, 
*'  If  there  were  none  that  oppofed  the  Baptifm  of  new- 
*'  born  Infants,  why  fliould  the  firft  Part  of  this  Canon 
^'  be  made  f"  I  anfvver,  i.  It  may  be  accounted  fo/, 
without  fuppofing,  there  were  any  in  thofe  Times  thai 
cppos'd  tbeSaptita  of  Infants  ^  If  it  were  only  clcilgned 
■■"""■■'  -  --- '"       •        eq 


Chap.  IIL  df  Infant-Baptifm:  15^- 

to  confirm  the  Argument,  which  theCatholicks  conftantly 
us'd  to  prove  that  Infants  were  not  without  Sin,  derived 
by  natural  Generation  from  Adam^  taken  from  the  gene- 
ral Pradice  of  the  Church  in  adminiftring  Baptilm  to 
thofe  of  that  early  Age,  before  they  could  be  guilty  of 
a6lual  Sins  \  and  alfo  to  obviate,  or  cut  off  the  Plea,that 
might  be  made  ufe  of  by  any  to  evade  the  Force  of  that 
Argument,by  denying  that  Infants  ought  to  be  baptized  % 
of  which  Pdagius  is  faid  to  have  been  accufed,  but  with- 
out any  other  Grounds,  it  feems,  but  that  ot  it's  vifible 
Connection  v/ith  his  otherTenet,thatInfants  are  free  from 
the  Defilement  of  original  Sin.  And  therefore  theCoun- 
cil  denounces  an  Anathema  againft  him  that  fhould  deny 
the  Baptifm  of  new-born  Infants.  Take  the  Canon  en- 
tire, as  it  is  level'd  againft  the  Pelagian  Herefy,this  can'c 
be  thought  unreafonable.  Ncverthelefs,  I  am  rather  in- 
clin'd  to  think,  2.  That  the  firft  Part  of  the  Canon  was 
fram'd  with  a  particular  View  to  the  Opinion  of  thofe 
who  held,  thatlnfants  were  not  to  be  baptized  before  the 
eighth  Day  from  their  Birth  •,  tho'  they  fully  agreed  to 
the  Pradice  of  Infant-Baptifm,  yet  thought  the  old  Law 
of  Circumcifion  was  fo  far  to  b&regardedjas  to  determine 
the  Day  before  which  Infants  were  not  to  be  baptizei 
He  fays,  "This  wantsProof ;  viz.  "That  there  were  fome 
People  of  this  Opinion  in  the  Time  of  this  Council,  that 
the  firft  Part  of  the  Canon  ftiould  be  made  with  Refpe6l 
to  them.  Anf,  But  it  is  fufticiently  manifeft,  partly,  in 
that  the  fameOpinion  had  been  ftarted,  and  was  difcufs'd 
and  rejefled  by  a  Council  h^ldihy  Cyprian  inthefameCity 
of  C^r/^^^(?,confifting  of  fixty  fixBifhops, about  i5oYcars 
before,  occafioned  by  aQueftion  put  to  Cyprian  by  Fidus^ 
a  Bifhop  or  Prefbyter  in  fome  Part  of  the  Country  about 
Carthage^  Whether  Infants  were  to  he  baptized  before  the 
eighth  Day  ?  Cyprian  with  his  Colleagues  came  into  an 
unanim.ousDetermination  againft  this  Opinion  5  whereof 
Mention  has  been  made  before.  Which  renders  it  highly 
probable  that  this  was  the  Notion  of  more  than  zftngk 
Perfon;^  and  that  th^re  were  fome  that  maip^ai.n'd  and  ad- 
r  "    "  ^'    "         '      hered 


154        A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.  III. 

hered  to  this  Notion,  even  to  the  Year  418,  when  it  was 
condemn'd  a  fecondUme  by  aCouncil  atC^r/i?^^^.  Partly, 
it  appears  from  the  original iWords  of  the  Canon,  which 
have  a  direct  Afpedl   on  the  forefaid  Opinion  \  a  right 
Tranflation  whereof  might  have  fatisfied  theReader,with- 
out  further  Proof.    The  Words  in  the  Original  are.  Item 
placid t^    ut  qiiicunque  '  parvulos  recent es  ah  uteris  matrum 
baptizandos  Negate  &c.  Anathema  fit.     Dr.  Gill  (whether 
defigaedly,or  not,  I  fliall  not  fay)  has  not  fairly  render'd 
thefe  words  of  the  Canon  into  Englifh^  in  that  he  has  not 
given  the  proper  and  full  Emphafts  of  the  Words  Parva- 
los  recentes  ah  uteris  matrum^  when  he  renders  them  by  a 
more  general  Term,  new-horn  Infants^  which  may  be  ap- 
plied to  an  Infant  of  a  Month  old,or  more,  as  well  as  to 
one  of  a  Day  old.     Whereas  the  literal  Tranflation  is  ; 
jllfo  it  is  our  Pleafure^  (or,  it  is  refolved)  that  whofoever 
denies  that  Infants  come  frefh  from  their  Mothers  Womhs 
are  to  he  haptiz\U  &c.  let  him  he  Anathema.  Which  Man- 
ner of  ExprefTion  can't  otherwife  be  fo  well  accounted 
tor,  than  as  it  relates  to,  and  is  direded  againft  thofe  that 
held  the  foremention'dOpinion,ThatInfants  are  not  to  be 
bapciz'd  any   Time   when   come  frefh  from  their  Mo- 
thers Womh^  till  at  leaft  they  be  eight  Days  old ;  tho'  the 
Maintainers  of  thisOpinion  were  far  from  denying,  that 
Infants  ought  to  be  baptized.     Either  of  thefe  Ways,the 
former  Part  of  the  Canon  may  reafonably  be  accounted 
for  :  And  if  fo,  there  ilill  wants  Proof, much  more,  that 
there  were  any  at  that  Time  that  oppos'd  theBaptifm  of 
Infants. 

tIovvevcr,to  be  fare  of  fomething  that  may  look  like  a 
Proof,  that  Infant-Baptifm  was  Matter  of  Debate  in  the 
Church  before  the  Madmen  of  Munfter  appeared  in  the 
World,  and  as  fufpedling  that  all  his  Allegations  hitherio 
might  be  rejeded  as  at  leail:  doubtful  and  uncertain  ;  he 
runs  up  at  laft  to  his  I'ertullian  in  the  Beginning  of  the 
thirdCentury,  and  ia.ys^Pag.'},6.  "Plowever,  certain  it  is 
*'  that  Terttil/ian  oppos'd  the  Baptifm  of  Infants,  and 
^  diffuaded  froiu  it,  who  is  the  iirft  Writer  that  makes 

"  mention 


Chap.  III.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  155 

"  mention  of  it ;  fo  it  appears5that  as  foon  as  ever  it  was 
*'  fet  on  Foot,  it  became  Matter, of  Debate."  How^^^r- 
tullian  oppos'd  Infant-Baptifm^has  been  fhewed  already  ; 
not  by  condemning  it  as  unlawful  &  unwarrantable,  (for 
in  fome  Cafes  he  admitted  it,)  but  by  giving  it  as  his  O- 
pinion,and  Advice,  that  it  is  more  profitable  thatBaptifni 
fhould  be  delayed  in  the  Age  of  Infancy,  till  riperYears, 
Nor  does  it  appear  from  anyRecord  in  ancient  HiHory, 
that  there  was  any  Debate  in  the  Church  rais'd  on  this 
Account ;  Nor  that  any  Oppofition  was  made  to  his  O- 
pinion  by  any  of  theFathers  :  fo  fa-r  is  it  from  being  true, 
lh?iiInfant'Baptifm  was  fir  fi  fet  onFoot  inTertuIlian'sTimc^ 
or  that  ii  then  began  to  be  Matter  of  Debate^tha.t  his  fingu- 
lar  Fancy  was  not  thought  fo  confiderable,as  to  give  any 
Turn  to  the  general  Perfuafion  of  Chriflians,  or  any  In- 
terruption to  the  general  Practice  of  the  Church  in  bap- 
tizing their  lafants  ,  which  Origen^  who  liv'd  in  th^  Be- 
ginning of  the  fame  Century,  teflifies  to  have  been  the 
ccnftant  Prad:ice/r^»^  the  /Ipoftles,  Nor  can  it  be  made 
to  appear  from  any  good  Authority,  that  there  ever  was 
one  Cedt  form'd  upon  his  Opinion,  or  any  oneMan,either 
in  that,  or  the  fucceeding  Ages,  that  profelTedly  adhered 
to  it.  So  that  (as  far  as  appears)  as  this  Opinion  was 
peculiar  to  TertuUiany  who  fignaliz'd  himfelt  by  divers 
other  odd  and  fmgular  Conceits,  fo  it  died  with  him,  and 
was  no  more  heard  of  in  the  Church,  till  reviv'd  by  the 
Antipsdobaptifts.  Therefore  Dr.  G///'s  Argument  (if  he 
means  to  argue  anyThing  from  this  Inflance  ofTertuIlian) 
mult  run  to  thisEfFed  j  ^Tertullian  djebated  it  with  him- 
feif,  whether  Infants  were  to  be  baptized  :  But  "TertuUian 
was  in  the  Cathoiick  Church,  till  he  turn'd  Heretick  by 
embracing  theErrors  of  Montanus  :  Therefore  it  can't  be 
truly  faid,  there  were  no  Debates  in  the  Church  about  In- 
fant-Bapcifi-n  tWltheMadmen  ofMunfter  appear'd.' — How 
ridiculous  foever  this  Argument  appears,  yet  I  am  per- 
fuaded,  he  can  fet  it  in  no  better  and  ftrongerLight,  un- 
lefs  he  could  prove  (which  I  hardly  think  he  v/ill  ever  at- 
tempt to  do}  that  there  were  Dcba&es  aad  Contcfts  rais'd 

'  '     "  in 


1 5 5  'A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  III. ^ 

m  the  Church,  either  with  Terlullian^  or  any  other  in  his 
Time,  about  Infant-Baptifm. 

Thus  I  have  made  fome  Remarks  on  all  the  Authori- 
tlesjwhich  he  has  mufler'd  together  under  this  Head,  and 
Ihewed  how  little  they  ferve  hisCaufe,  and  how  infufRci- 
ent  to  prove  what  he  has  been  aiming  at  inOppohtion  to 
the  abovemention'd  Aflertion  in  the  Dialogue.  And 
therefore,  by  all  that  occurs  hitherto,  he  mufl  be  content 
to  take  the  old  German  Anabaptifts,  that  appear'd  in  the 
World  a  little  better  than  two  Centuries  ago, for  his  ear- 
lieftPredeceffors,how  fliy  foever  of  owning  them  as  fuch  ^ 
being  unable  to  make  out  hisClaim,with  the  leaflDegree 
of  Clearnefs  orCertainty  to  any  others  of  a  more  ancient 
Date. — However,  there  remains  one  Claim  mere,  which 
if  he  can  make  goodjit  will  be  granted, he  may  find  Pre- 
deceflors  four  or  five  HundredYears  higher  than  the  Pe- 
riod lail  mentioned  ;  and  thefe  are  the  ancitntfValdenfeSy 
whom  he  pretends  to  have  been  Ant ip ^ dob ap lifts.  I  fhall 
have  thePatience  flill  to  attend  him  with  myRemarks,and 
doubt  not  to  evince,  the  Grounds  of  his  Pretenfions  are 
as  precarious  and  defe6tive,as  hitherto  they  have  appear'd 
to  be  :  And  this  will  be  the  Subjed  of  our  Enquiry  under 
the  next.  Head. 

IV.  Whether  the  ancient  TValdenfes  were  in  the  con- 
•llant  Practice  of  Adult-Baptifm  only, and  denied  theBap- 
tifm  of  Infants  ?  Dr. Gill  very  earneftly  contends  for  the 
AfHrmative,and  feems  to  take  it  in  Difdain,that  it  fhould 
be  call(?d  a  meer  Chimera,  or  groundlefs  Figment,  by  the 
Author  of  the  Dialogue.  But  indeed,  unlefs  hisOpinion 
could  be  better  fupported,  this  is  the  mofl  proper  Ap- 
pellation that  can  be  given  it  ;  ef];3ecially,  if  on  the  con- 
trary it  can  be  made  to  appear  (as  I  doubt  not  it  may)by 
fuflicient  Evidence,that  the  ancient  JValdenfrs  (not  inclu> 
ding  the  feveral  Seds  lump'd  together  by  diePapifls  un-" 
der  that  Name,fome  of  whom  deny'd  all  Water  Baptifm, 
and  had  feveral  other  Names  or  Denominations  :  But  the 
JFaldenfes  ftridlly  &  properly  fo  called,and  the  Albigenfes^ 
who  were  of  the  fame  religious  Perfi,miion)  were  ever  in 

the 


Chap.  III.  of  InFant-Baptlfm.  1^7 

the  Practice  of  Infant-Baptlfm.  This  I  Ihall  endeavour 
to  prove  ",  and  then  fliali  confiderjwhat  Weight  there  is 
in  what  Dr.  Gill  has  to  fay  on  the  contrary. 

But  in  order  to  a  clearer  underftanding  of  this  Matter, 
it  may  not  be  amifs  to  premife  a  few  Things  very  briefly 
concerning  the  Waldenfes. — As  to  thcName  o^  JValdenfes^ 
HiRorians  generally  agree,  they  are  fo  denominated  from 
one  Peter  Waldo  (ox  Waldus)  a  rich  Citizen  of  Lyons  in 
France^  who  began  to  publifli  his  Doftrine,  A.  D.  1 160 
(fome  fay,  A.D.  1130)  in  Oppofition  to  the  Idolatries, 
and  Corruptions  of  the  Church  of  Ro7ne  5  affirming,  that 
Ihe  had  loftjhe  Faith  of  Jefus  Chrift,  and  that  Ihe  wa€ 
the  Whore  of  Babylon  fpoken  of  in  the  Revelationy 
condemning  Purgatory,  Mafies,  Dedication  of  Temple?, 
Worlhipping  of  Saints,  and  Commemoration  ot  the 
Dead, as  Inventions  of  the  Devil,  and  Snares  of  Avarice. 
This  Waldo^  it  is  faid,  reading  that  Command  of  ourSa- 
viour  to  the  rich  young  Man,Ai"<:2//i?.  19.21.  took  a  Re- 
folojtion  of  felling  all  he  had,  and  giving  it  to  the  Poor  • 
and  fome  Writers  report,  that  oneEvening  after  Supper, 
as  he  was  walking  and  talking  with  his  Friends  &  Com- 
panions, one  of  them  fell  down  dead  upon  the  Ground. 
Being  greatly  affedei  with  that  awful  Accident,  he  took 

•  a  Refolution  to  lead  an  unblameable  Life,  approaching 
as  near  as  he  could  to  thatof  theApoftles,  applying  him- 
felf  Vv'holly  to  the  reading  of  theScriptures,  and  initru6l- 
ing  the  Poor  that  reforted  to  him  for  Alms,  in  the  Way 
of  Saivatior.',  from,  the  Word  of  God.  But  he  with  his 
Followers,  v;ht>  were  greatly  multiplied  in  about  Three 
Years  Space,  being  driven  out  of  Lyons  by  the  Fury  of 
papal  Perfecution,  they  difpfr-s'd  tjiemfelves  into  other 
Regions  •,  this  became  the  Means  of  propagating  their 
Doctrine,  and  increafmg  the  Number  of  their  Followers 
in  mofl  Countries  in  Europe.  *  Now  it  is  to  be  noted, 
that  (  as  I  hinted  before;  about  the  Time  of  the  Rife  of 

the 

*  See  Pf/vV/s  Luthirh  Forerunners.  Book  I.  Ch,  i,  2.  Fulhr\  Hoi/ 
War.  Book  III.  Ch.  19.  ViUihdQrf,  «ited  k  We.ir^  Hift.  Paftll^ 
Ch.:!.;. 


158  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  III. 

the  Waldenfes^  and  before  that  Time,  there  had  fprung 
up  divers  Se6ls  in  the  fameParts^of  the  World,  chiefly  iai 
the  SouthernParts  of  France^  andNorth  of  Italy ^  &:  about 
theJlps,  fomeof  whom  were  grofly  Heterodox,  holding; 
the  vile  Opinion  of  the  Manichees,  (as  already  obferv'd) 
fome  denying  all  Water- Baptifm  ;  one  Se6t  only,  w^ho 
own'd  Water- Baptifm,  viz.  xhtPetrobrufians^  Dr.  IVall 
(who  feems  to  have  made  the  mofh  accurate  and  impar- 
tial Search  of  anyMan  into  thisMatterJ  is  of  Opinionjde- 
nied  it  peculiarly  to  Infants  ;  -f  of  whom  before,  what  is 
fufhcient  has  been  fpoken.  And  if  this  StOi  be  given  up 
to  the  Antipiedobaptifls,  it  is  their  Intereft  to  make  the 
bcft  of  them  ;  yet  it  is  but  httle  Credit  or  Advantage 
that  will  accrue  to  their  Caufe  from  this  Sort  of  People  : 
For  it  is  equally  certain  by  the  lameAuthority,  that  they 
wholly  cafhier'd  the  otherSacrament,  denying  theLord's 
Supper  to  be  a  continuingOrdinance  finceChrift'sTime  ; 
and  feeing  all  Chriflians  agree,  upon  the  Warrant  and 
Authority  of  the  Apoftle  (  i  Ccr.  10.  16,  ly.)  that  this/ 
Sacrament  was  inftituted  for  a  Band  of  Communion  ta 
the  whole  Body  of  Chriftians,  I  know  not  what  Right  a 
People  that  renounce  it  have  to  be  reputed  any  Part 
of  the  Chriftian  Community.  But  all  thefe  Seds  fetting 
up  in  Oppofition  to  the  RomtJhChnrch  and  the  fcandalous 
Corruptions  that  were  then  maintained  in  it  ^  the  popifh 
Writers,  either  out  of  Ignorance  or  Malice,  have  fince 
charg'd  on  the  whole  Body  of  their  Oppofites  indifcri- 
minately,  under  the  Name  of  Walderifes^  the  grofseft  Er- 
rors ot  iome  fewSeds  that  intermingled  with  them  :  and 
among  therefl-,  theError  of  denyinglnfant-Baptifm.  And 
tjiis  is  all  theColour  (I  can  find)  for  maintaining  any  A- 
grcement  of  the  anzmMJValdenfei  inOpinion  and  Pradice 
with  the  Antipicdobaptifits. 

But  that  the  IFaldenfcs  flriflly  fo  called,  or  the  Fol- 
lowers of  the  Doctrine  of  Peter  Waldo  (ox  as  fome  Writers 
call  him,  Peter  of  IValden^  in  the  Confines  of  France  \\ ) 

were 

-t-  rVnWs  HHl.  Part  11.  Ch.  7.  §.  5,  7. 
H  UOcr.  d^^uQ^^i^  Bed  ti\,  8.  §.  s,  ^^ 


Ch AP. .  III.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  1 59 

were  no  Friends  to  Antipasdobaptifm,  but  have  been  in 
the  conftanc  Pradice  of  Infant-Baptifm,  appears  to  be 
the  Truth,  as  far  as  may  be  learnt  from  any  certain  Re- 
cord of  their  Principles  and  Practice.  And  this  I  fhall 
endeavour  to  make  evident, 

Firji^  From  negative  Teftimony  ;  I  mean,  from  their 
not  being  charg'd  .with  the  Denial  of  Infant-Baptifm,by 
fome  ofthe  fierceft  of  their  Adverfaries  that  wrote* againft 
;them.     I  don't  pretend  to   have  feen  or  confuked  the 
.  Books  of  tliofe  ancient  popifh  Writers,  that  appear'd  a- 
j  gainft  the  Waldenfes  before  the  Times  of  the  Reforma- 
j  tion ',  (  nor  does  our  Author  pretend  it,  fo  far  as  appears 
I  from  hisQuotations)  But  fuchAuthors  of  unqueftionable 
Veracity  and  Credibility,  who  have  feen  and  read  thofe 
I  Books,  and  produced  large  Quotations   from  them,  as 
jBp.  Ujher'%  Hiilory  oi  ihcSucceffion  of  theWefternChurches^ 
'Dr.  Wair%  Hiflory  oi  Infant-Baptifm,  and  others, efpec'i- 
ally  Mr.  Perm's  Hiflory  of  the  IValdenfes^    colleded 
from  their  own  ancientRecords  ;  which  is  therefore  more 
to  be  relied  on,  than  a  Thoufand  of  their  popifli  Adver- 
faries,  whofe  Inrerefl  and  Inclination  it  was  to  paint  them 
out  as  odious   as  pofTible  :  Thefe  I  have    perus'd  ;  and 
from  thefeAuthors  it  appears,that  tho'  among  the  diffe- 
rent Seds  that  hadrifenup  at  that  Day  under  different 
Names,  fome  were  charg'd  by  thofe  ancient   Writers 
iwith  the  Error  of  denying  Infant-Baptifm,    yet  to  thofe 
'who  are properly^called  IValdenfes,  whom  the  Protedants 
have  generally  own'dfor  Predeceffors,  they  attribute  no 
hich  Error.  And  tho'  all  thefe  Se6ls  have  been  blended 
;  together  under  the  general  Name  of  Waldenfes ;  yet  Dr. 
"^IVall  fays,  "  Efpecially  this  is  conflanr,that  no  one  Au- 
"■•  thor  that  calls  the  People  he  writes  of,  l4^aIdenfeSydoQ% 
'*  impute  to  them  the  Denial  of  Infant-Baptifm.* 

Billiop  Ufljer  produces  out  of  JSneas  Sylvhts  his 
liiftory  of  Bohemia,  out  of  Guilielm.  Reginald,  and  from 
a  very  ancient  Manufcript,  cited  by  the  MagdeJmrgejtfan 
Hijiorians,  feveral  large  Catalogues  of  the  Tenets  of  tho, 

Waldenfq, 

*  Wdh  Hiil,  Part  II,  Ch.  7.  §.  7, 


i6o        A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  IIL 

Waldenfes,  which  thePapifts  charg'd  upon  them  as  Errors, 
purpofely  written  to  give  a  particularEnumeration  of 'em. 
But  there  is  in  none  of  thofeCatalogues  the  leaft  mentioii 
of  anyError  theyheld  concerninglnfant-Baptifm.  Nor  is 
there  any  Error  at  all  charged  upon  them  aboutBaptifm, 
but  only  their  ufing  meerWater,  and  refufing  theMixture 
of  confecrated  Oil,  which  jEneas  Sylvius  and  Reginald 
are  fo  particular  as  to  recite  •,  a  trivial  Matter,  in  Com- 
parifon  of  the  Denial  of  Infant-Baptifm,  which  they 
would  by  no  Means  have  omitted,  had  there  been  juit 
Grounds  to  charge  them  with  it.  And  he  cites  to  the 
famelFurpofe  Jacob  Picolomineus,  Antoni  BonfniuSy  and 
others. t  Befides  thefc,  Dr.  fVall  alfo  refers  toLucasTu- 
den/is,  and  Petrus  de  Pilichdorf,  who  had  written  largely 
againft  the  Waldenfes  ;  and  Nauckrus  his  Chronicon  \  and 
tlie  feveral  Treatifes  in  Gretxefs  Colle6tion,  written  a- 
gainft  the  Waldenfes^  reckoning  up  their  hetorodox  Opi- 
nions :  in  all  which  (he  faysjthere  is  not  aWord  of  their 
Denial  of  Infant-Baptifm.*  Whence  we  may  rationally 
conclude,it  is  morally  certain,thcy  did  not  hold  thatError. 
For  had  they  renounced  the  Baptifm  of  Infants,  it  could 
not  fail  of  being  known  \  and  their  popiih  Adverfaries, 
we  may  be  fure,  w^ould  not  have  failed  of  inferting  ic 
in  the  particular  recital  of  theirErrors.     But  moreover, 

Secondly y  We  have  pofitivc  Tedimony  concerning  this 
People's  owning  and  pra6lifing  Infant-Baptifm,  from 
the  Account  given  of  them  by  others,  and  which  they 
give  of  themfelves,from  their  own  Books  &  Conteflions. 
Dr.  IValU  after  his  critical  Search  info  this  Affair,  thus 
concludes :  %  ^'If  we  take  theName  (JValdenfes)  itridly  for 
<«  one  Sort  of  Men,  as  thofe  old  Writers  generally  do, 
^<  then  ther^is  no  Account  that  any  of  them  v/ere  Jnti- 
<'  'pjedobaptifh  \  But  if  we  take  it  in  that  large  Senfe,  as 
*'  many  lare  Writers  do,  to  include  all  the  Sorts  that  I 
<'  have  rehearfed,  then  there  is  probable  Evidence  that 
''  one  Sort  of  them,  viz.  the  Petrobntfians^  were  fo  ;  but 

"  not 

f  De  Sue.  Eccl.  Ch.  6.  i  i6,  17,  i?.      *  Jr.i{ir&  Hift.Part.  If. 

Ch,  7.  §.  6.       %  Iii(L  §,  7* 


Chap.  III.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  i5r 

**  not  that  the  general  Body  of  the  U^aldenfes 'wtrt^^ 
And  he  adds,  "  That  Opinion  of  th^ Petrobrujiaru  feema 
**  to  have  been  in  a  lliortTime  extinguilhed  Sctorgotren/* 
Fuller^  giving  fome  Account  of  the  Albigenfes^  who  were 
a  Branch  of  the  IValdenfes^  or  of  the  fame  Faith  &  ReH- 
gion  with  them,  faith,  "  TheBaptifm  of  Infancs  they  re- 
"  fus'd  not,but  only  deferred  it,'tiii  ic  might  be  ad  mini- 
"  fired  by  one  of  their  ownMinifters  •,  their  tender  Con- 
"  fciences  not  digefting  the  Popifh  Baptifm,  where  clear 
*'  Water  by  God's  Ordinance  was  by  Man's  Additions 
**  made  aSalve  withPlaifter."*  Which  is  exadly  agreable 
to  the  Accoun  given  of  them  hy Paul  Ferin  j  an  Author 
of  chief  •  redit  in  this  Matter,  wiiocompil'd  the  Hiftory 
of  the  Waldenjes  (as  was  noted  before  J  out  of  their  owa 
ancient  Writings  &  ConfefTions  ;  and  fhews  very  plainly 
fromthence,that  the  Baptifm  of  littlelnfants  was  anuncon- 
troverted  Pradice  among  them.  And  the  Denial  ot  ic 
is  reckoned  in  the  Number  ot  the  Calumnies  charged  up- 
on them  by  rhePapifts.  ^he  fourth  /i,faith  he,  that  they 
reje^i  theBaptifm  cf  Infants.-];'  How  they  acquitted  them- 
felves  of  this  Slander,  he  fhews  from  an  ancient  Book  a- 
mong  them,  entitled  the  Spiritual  Almanack.  %  I  fhall  fet 
down  the  Words  at  large,  becaufe  they  plainly  fliew  that 
they  own  the  Pra'lice  of  Infant-Baptifm,  and  what  ic  was 
that  gave  a  Handle  to  their  Adverfaries  the  Papifls  to 
bring  the  before- mentioned  flanderous  Accufacion  againft 
them.  Thus  then  they  clear  themfelves  from  this  Im- 
putation. "  The  Time  and  Place  of  thofe  that  arc  to 
•'  be  baptized,  is  not  ordained,  but  the  Charity  &  Edifi- 
•*  cation  of  the  Church  and  Congregation  muft  ferve  for 
**  a  Rule  therein,  &c.  And  therefore  they  to  whom  the 
•*  Children  were  neareft  allied,  bro't  their  Infants  to  be 
"  baptized  •,  as  the  Parents,  or  any  other  whom  God 
•*  had  made  charitable  in  that.Kind.  True  it  is,that  be- 
•*  ing  conftrained  for  fome  certain  Hundred  Years  to  fuf- 
••  fer  their  Children  to  be  baptized  by  the  PrieRs  of  the 
••  Church  of  Rome^xVty  defcr'd  the  doing  thereof  as  long 

M  as 

•  Tulhy-'i  Holy  War,  Book  III.  Ch.  20. 

t  Hilt,  of  the  Waldmfis,  Book  I.  Chap.  3.    %  Hid,  Ch.  4, 


1 62  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.  III. 

"  as  they  could  pofiibly,  hecaufe  they  had  in  Detejlation, 
*«  thcfe  human  Inventions  which  were  added  to  that  holy 
"  Sat^ament,which  theyheldtobe  butPollutions  thereofV 
*'  But  for  as  much  as  theirPaftors(which  they  CdWBarbes) 
**  \'reie  manyTimes  Abroad,  employ'd  in  the  Service  of 
*^  'their  Churches,  they  could  not  have  the  Sacrament  of 
*'  Baptifm  adminiftred  to  their  Infants  by  their  ownMi- 
•*  nifters  ;  for  this  Caufe,  they  kept  them  long  from 
*'  Baptjfm  •,  which  the  Priefts  perceiving,and  takingNo- 
"  tice  of,  charg'd  them  thereupon  with  thislmpofture  ; 
"  which  not  only  theirAdverfaries  have  believed5but  di- 
^*  ver^  others,who  have  well  approved  of  their  Lite  and 
*'^'  i^ai'th  in  all  other  Points." —  There  are  a  great  many 
Pal^igesin  the  faid'Piiftorian,  that  make  it  plain  &  evi- 
dent, that  there  was  no  Difpute  among  them  about  the 
baptizing  of  Infants,but  that  it  was  their  avowedPraftice. 
I  fhall  take  Notice  of  one  or  twoPalTages  which  are  clear 
to  thisPurpofe.  The  one  is  contain'd  in  the  Proportions 
er  Articles  folemnly  afifented  to  by  the  Churches  in  Pied- 
mont:, affeitibled  at  Angrcgn^,  by  the  Heads  of  their  Fa- 
milies, with  their  Paflors,  in  the  Year  1535,  Sept.  12. 
Which Propofitionsfthey  fiiy)  had  been  taught  them  from 
the  Fathers  to  the  Son,  for  thefe  many  Hundred  Years, 
tind  taken  out  of  the  Word  of  God  The  Seventeenth  is 
in  thefe  Words,*  viz.  "Touching  the  Matter  of  the  Sa- 
"  craments,  it  hath  been  concluded  by  the  holy  Scrip- 
"  tnres,  that  we  have  but  two  Sacramental  Signs,  the 
*'  v/hich  Jcfus  Chrift  hath  left  unto  us  •,  the  one  is  Bap* 
"  tifm,  the  other  the  Euchariil ;  which  We  receive,  to 
"  fhew  what  our  Perfeverance  in  theFaith  is,  as  we  have 
*'  prom/i  fed,  vuhtn  ice  were  baptized  being  It  I  tie  Infants ;  as 
*'  alfo  in  Remembrance  of  that  greatBenefit,which  Jefus 
*'  Chrift  hath  done  unto  us,  when  he  died  for  our  Re- 
*'  dcmption,  wailiing  us  with  his  moft  precious  Blood." 
No  Man  reading  this,xvith  an  unbyas'd  Mind,  but  would 
conclude  without  all  Doubt,  thatliaptifm  in  Infancy  had 
been  an  ufual  Praclice  among  them,  and  that  they  re- 
ceived 
[I.  Ch.  4. 


Chap.  III.  of  Infant- Baptifm.  1^3 

ceived  and  obferved  the  other  Sacrament,  in  Tefllmony 
of  their  conftant  Adherence  to  the  baptifmal  Vow, which 
they  came  under  the  Bonds  of,  when  little  Infants,  What 
Dr.  Gill  excepts  againft  this  Article,!  fhall  prefently  con- 
fider.     In  the  mean  Time,    1  fhall  add  another  PafTage 
to  the  famePurpofe  :  It  is  in  their  Bo^frine  of  tbsSacra^ 
merttSy  extradled  from  their  old  Books,  which  Mr.  Perin 
has  publifhed  in  the  third  Part  of  their  Hiftory.  *     The 
PafTage  runs  thus  •,     "  Whereas  Baptifm  is  adminiftred 
"  in  a  full  Congregation  of  the  Faithful, it  is  to  the  End, 
"  that  he  that  is  received  into  the  Church,  fhould  be  re- 
"  puted  and  held  of  all  for  a  ChriflianBrother  -,  and  that 
**  all  the  Congregation  might  pray  for  him, that  he  may 
I  *'  be  a  Chriftian  in  Heart,as  he  is  outwardly  efteemed  to 
*'  be  a  Chriftian.     And  for  this  Caufe  it  is,  that  wepre- 
*'  fent  our  Children  in  Baptifm, which  they  ought  to  do, 
''  to  whom  the  Children  are  neareft,  as  the  Parents,  and 
*'  they  to  whom  God  has  given   this  Charity."     What 
Evidence  more  full  &  dired:  to  the  Purpofe  can  be  de- 
fined than  this,  if  the  Account  this  People  give  of  their 
own  Dodlrine  is  to  be  credited,  rather  than  that  of  their 
Adverfaries  ?  And  in  their  feveral  ancient  Trearifes,  Ca- 
techifms,  and  Confeilions  which  Mr.  Perin  has  colle6led 
and  annexed,  at  the  End  of  his  Hiftory,  wherein  there  is 
a  particular  Enumeration  of  the  Errors  of  the  Church  of 
Rome^  which  they  renounc'd  and  witnefs'd  againft,  there 
is  no  Mention  of  Infant -Baptifm,  as  one  of  thofe  Errors. 
Which  is  a  manifeft-Argunnent  that  they  did  not  account 
that  to  be  any  Part  of  the  antichriftian  Corruption,  but 
a  facredOrdinance  of  Chrift  :  otherwife  they  would  with- 
out all  Doubt  have  teftified  againft  it   as  well  as  many 
other  popiftilnnovations,&fome  of  muchlefslmportance. 
All  thefe   Confiderations  laid  together,   will  amount  (I 
prefume)  to  a  convi6liveEvidence  to  any  reafonableMan, 
that  the  ancient  IValdenfes  own'd  and  pradis'd  Infant- 
Baptifm; 

But  now  let  us  confider,what  Dr,G///has  to  alledge  on 
M  2  the 

f  Jbid,  Pt.  3.  Book  I.  Chap.  6. 


I  ^4  A  t>efena  of  the  Divine  Righi         Chap.  IIL 

the  contrary  :  I  find  all  his  Reafgns  to  prove  the 
7'FaIdenfes  were  ia  rhePradice  of  Adult-Baptifin  only  (for 
this  he  muft  pretend, or  he  had  as  good  fay  nothing  •,  for  ,^, 
no  Man  ever  doubted  that  they  baptized  advik  Perfons  i 
as  well  as  Infants)  are  fo  farletch'd,  and  inconclufivejthac 
I  cannot  think  they'l  h^ve  much  Weight  with  any  judi- 
cious and  impartial  Enquirer  -,  that  I  need  not  fpend 
many  Words  in  refuting  them. 

He  lays,P^.36.  "^  There  was  a  People  in  the  Valleys  of 
*^  t^Ldmcnt  beioie  the  Times  of  Waldo^  and  even  from 
'^  the  Apoftles  Times,  that  held  the  pure  evangelical 
**  Truths,&  bore  al  eftimony  to  them  thro'out  the  dark' 
*^  Times  of  Popery."  Anf,  And  for  that  Reafon  I  be- 
lieve they  held  ihcDo6trine  of  Infant-Baptifm^  and  their 
Practice  was  agreable,  for  ought  that  has  ever  been  made 
to  appear  to  the  contrary.  But  hov/  will  Dr.  Gill  prove 
in  Oppofition  to  ibeDialogue^ihat  i\idValdenfes  being  in  the 
conftant  Pradice  of  Adult- Baptifm,  is  anymore  than  a 
Chimera  or  groundlefs  Fidion  ? 

I.  He  thinks  it  may  appear,  "  by  what  their  ancient 
*'  5t3rto  or  Paftcrs  taught  concerning  it."  P.  ^7"  And 
here  for  Infbance,  he  brings  in  only  Peter  Bruis,  and  one 
Henry  and  Arnold  of  Brejiia^  the  Adherents  &  Follower^ 
of  Bruis^  as  denying  Infant-Baptifm.  Thefe  Men,  it  is 
granted,  may  be  called  IValdenfes  in  that  large  Senfe  of 
lome  iate  WriterSjWhich  Dr.  ll^all  fpeaks  of,  as  inclufive 
of  the  feveral  Sefts  or  Societies  of  Men,  that  rofe  up  in 
thofe  Times,  and  in  thofe  Parts  of  the  World,  hoidirg 
diffcrentOpinions.  But  the  Petrobrttjtans  were  a  differenc 
Se6t  from  the  JVrddenJes  ftridlly  fo  called,  as  Dr.  Wall 
has  clearly  fhewed  from  thofe  old  Writers*,  and  that 
^r  If  zV  began  to  ceach  feveral  Years  be  fore^^/<i^  appeared.  || 
And  it  thefe  Men  be  yielded  to  him,  I  fhall  leave  him, 
after  what  has  been  fald  of  them,  to  make  his  beft  Ad- 
vantage of  'em.  But  they  will  avail  him  Nothing  for 
Proof  that  the  proptrFt^alden/es  were  agi|inftInfant-Bapr 
tifm.  As  for  tht  Lollards  inEngland{{o  narn'd,fays  our  Au- 
thor, 
II  TFatPs  Hift.  Part  II,  Ch.  7,  ^.  S, 


Chap.  III.  <2/^  Infant-Baptifm.  165 

thor,from  one.LoliardOyB.nothtr  of  thtir  Barl^es)  it  is  known, 
they  were  the  Difciples,  or  Followers  of  the  Doftrine  of 
yohn  Wickliff^  irom  whom  they  were  called  fFicklJfaes^f 
of  whofe  Opinion  in  Favour  of  Infant-Baptifm,  there  is 
good  Evidence,and  no  Evidence  to  the  contrary,bu£  that 
he  did  not  attribute  the  Efficacy  of  the  Ordinance  tQ  the 
meer  outward  Work,  as  the  popifh  Do^lors  did,  but  held 
in  Oppoiition  to  them,  that  an  Inrant  dying  unbaptized, 
being  providentially  hindred  from  the  Ordinance,might 
be  faved  oy  che  Mercy  of  God.  Therefore  what  our  Au- 
thor relates  out  of  Fox  his  A^'^s  and  Monuments  t,  of  fome 
Lollards^  who  were  charged  with  holding  that  '^  the  Sa- 
*'  crament  of  Baptifm  ufed  in  the  Church  by  Water,  is 
"  a  light  iMatter  and  of  fmall  Efred  :  that  Chriftian 
"  People  be  fufficiently  baptiz'd  in  the  Blood  of  Chrift, 
"  and  need  no  Water,  and  that  Infants  be  fufficiently 
"  baptiz'd,  if  theirParentsbe  baptiz'd  before  chem  :"  It 
is  moft  probable,  might  be  occalion'd  by  their  holding 
the  forefaid  Opinion  of  FFicklief,  that  the  meer  outward 
Work  of  wafhing  the  Body  has  no  faving  Euicacy,  and 
that  the  Children  of  Chriftian  Parents,by  Accident  dying 
without  Baptifn>,might  be  faved.  I  am  fure,he  can  argue 
nothing  hence  to  the  Advantage  of  hisCaufe.  For  either 
this  Charge  againft  the  Lollards  was  true  or  falfe.  If  it 
was  true,  1  fear,they  will  be  found  to  approach  nearer  the 
Quakers  in  Opinion,than  theAntipasdobapiifts,  as  deny- 
ing all  Ufe  or  Neceflity  of  Baptifm  with  Water.  If  it  was 
falfe,  (whichMr.F^^i-  fuppofes  to  have  beentheCafe,&:  that 
a  maliciousTurn  was  given  to  theirWords  by  thePapifts, 
who  were  likely  enough  to  exaggerate  Matters  of  fuch  a 
Nature  -,  there  is  no  Need  of  fuppofing,with  our  Author, 
that  it  arofe  "  from  their  deny inglnfant-Baptifm  .-"This 
it  msiyfeem  to  do  to  one  that  is  ignorant,  or  Itrongly  pre- 
pofleflfed,  but  to  any*  one  who  is  acquainoed  with  the  po- 
pifh Tenets,  and  difpos'd  to  weigh  Things  impartially, 
it  does  not  fo  much  as  feem  to  do  fo-,  for  there  can  be  littie 
Doubt,  but  that  it  had  its  Rife  from  their  denying  that 

M  3  Tenec 

t  F4t/Ur\  Churcli  nifkory  otBrK.  B00I5  IV.  }  z. 


1 66  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  III. 

Tenet  of  Popery,that  theSacraments  confer  Grace  ex  opere 
operato,  by  the  meer  outward  Work  done,  (which  is  aHo\ 
-deny'd  by  all  Proteftants)  and  their  afcribing  the  faving 
Efficacy  of  Baptifm,  to  the  Blood  and  Spirit  of  Chriflr, 
which  is  not  always  tied  to  the  outward  Sign,  efpecially 
when  there  is  no  Opportunity  of  receiving  it  j  and  this 
is  all  his  Evidence  from  the  ancient  Barbes. 

2.  He  pretends  to  prove  hisOpinion  from  ''  their  anci- 
*«  entConfefTiOns  &Writings."P.38. 1  have  produced  full  \ 
and  clear  Proof  out  of  thofe  ConfefTions  &  Writings, that 
they  own*d  and  praftifed  Infant- Baptifm  •,  and  fhall  own 
myfelf  much  miitaken,  if  he  can  produce  any  Thing  out 
of  'em  contradictory  ;  but  indeed  what  he  has  alledged, 
has  fcarce  theAppearance  of  a  Contradidion  :  He  quotes 
(ibid.)  the  i2th  &  13th  Articles  of  one  of  their  Confeffi- 
ons,  bearing  Date,  he  fays,  A.  D.  1 120.  (but  thisDate  is 
juilly  to  be  queftion'd,  being  feveral  Years  before  Peter 
Bruis^OY  Waldo^  appeared  in  the  World,  andPm;^  has  in- 
ferred it  without  a  Date,  taken  out  of  a  Book,  entitled. 
The  fpiritual  /llmanacky2ind  from  theMemorials  oiGecrge 
Morel.)  In  the  i2thArticle5they  profefs  theirBelief  of  the 
Sacraments,  '*  that  they  are  outwardSignsof  holyThings, 
**  or  vifible  Forms  of  the  invifible  Grace"  and  declare 
*'  they  hold  that  the  Faithful  may  be  faved  without  re- 
*'  ceiving  the  Signs  aforefaid,  inCafe  they  have  noPlace, 
*'  nor  any  Means  to  ufe  them."  In  the  i3thArticlethey 
profefs  to  own  but  two  Sacraments,  Baptifm  &  thtLord's 
Supper.  And  what  Proteilant  is  there  that  denies  either 
of  thefe  ?  To  whatPurpofe  then  can  they  be  alledg'd,but 
to  amufe  his  Readers  ?  His  nextQuotation  (ibid.)  is  to  as 
little  Purpofe.  It  is  the  fevenrh  Article  of  an  ancientCon- 
fefTion  of  the  Waldenfes.,  without  a  Date. 

That  which  he  conceives  makes  for  Adult-Baptifm  in 
this  Article,  I  fuppofe  is  that  Part  of  it  wherein  they  de- 
clare what  they  believe  to  be  the  internal  &  fpiritualPart 
of  Baptifm,  reprefented  by  the  outward  Sign,  namely, 
"  the  Renovation  of  the  Spirit,  and  the  Mortification  of 
!*  ourMembersinJefusChrift;  by  which  alfo  we  are  re- 

''  ceived 


Chap.  III.  of  Infant- Baptifm.  167 

**  ceived  into  the  holy  Congregation  of  the  People  of 
"  God,  thefe  protefting  and  declaring  opcniy  cur  Faith 
"  and  Amendment  of  Life."  And  what  Piiedobaptiil 
Church  can  he  name,but  acknowledges  all  this  and  more 
too  to  be  thefpiritual  Import  &Deiign  of  theOrdinanceof 
Baptifm,  whether  it  be  adminiflred  to  Inran:s  or  Adult  ? 
Or  if  he  put  the  Emphaf,s  on  thefe  jait Words,  there  {viz. 
in  the  Congregation)  protefting  grid  dedarm^  opeiifj^  XiUT 
Faith  andAynendment  of  Life,  .Ivcsx  this  is  no  more  than 
what  agrees  to  thcNature  of  Chriftian  Baptifm,to  whom- 
foever  adminiflred,  as  it  is  a  folemn  an4  open  Profellion 
of  Repentance  and  Newnefs  of  Life.  Or  can  he  be  ig- 
norant that  the  P^dobaptifts  require  this  ProfefBon  of  all 
adult  Perfons  that  come  to  thisOrdinapce,aad  of  Parents, 
and  Sponfors  that  prefent  their  Children  ?  And  theChild 
baptiz'd,  is  thereby  laid  under  aVow  or  Engagement  to 
inake  fuch  aProfefiion,  and  to  make  it  good  at  a  ,proper 
Age.  Nor  do  the  Words  of  theArticle  neceflarily  fuppofe 
or  imply  this  Declaration,to  be  always  made,  by  theparty 
baptiz'd.  previous  to  his  Baptifm... .  So  that  nothing  can 
be  gathered  hence,with  any  Pretence  of  Reafon,inFayour 
of  Antlpsdobaptifm,  Yet  he  goes  on  in  his  impertinent 
Quotations  :  The  next  is  a  Tra6t  called  the  noble  Leffton^ 
written  he  fays  in  the  Year  i  ioo,then,befure,long;beiore 
theTimes  ot  the  IValdenfes  •,  but  let  us  hear  the  Words  of 
the  noMeLeJfonywhtn  ever  it  was  writ  ^  He  has  thisPafiage 
from  it,P.39.  ^^^^^  fpeaking  of  theApoil:le5,it  is  obferv'd, 
that  "  they  fpoke  wuhoutFear,of  theDodrineof  Chriiti 
^^'^they  preach'd  to  Jews  &  Greeks,  working  many  Mi- 
"  racles,  and  thofe  that  believed,  they  baptized  in, the 
*'  Name  of  Jefus  Chnft."  And  does  he  think  there  is 
any  Chriftian  of  whatever  Denomination,  who  has  read 
the  Bible,  that  docs  not  believe  this  ?  Who  can  help  ad» 
ran-ing  the  fmgular  Penetration  of  our  Author,  that  he 
could  efpy  an  Argument  for  Antipsedobaprifm  in  this 
PaiTage,  which  no  Man  elfe,  I  am  perfuaded,  tho'  he  had 
read  the  noMe  Leffon  a  ThoufandTimes,  could  ever  have, 
karnt  from  it  !   They  believed  the  Hiftory  of  the  New- 

M  4  Teftamenc 


i6"8        A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  III. 

TeOament,  efpecially  the  A6ts  of  the  Apoftles,  and  the 
M^nnei  therein  declared,  how  they  admitted  their  Con- 
veits  from  Judaifm  &  Heatbewfm  to  Chriftian  Baptilm  ; 
(and  this  is  all  that  this  Palfage  from  the  noble  Lejfon 
teaches)  therefore  they  were  in  Opinion  againft  Intant- 
'Byi\(v[)y  and  for  Aduk-  Baptifm  only.  So  his  Argument 
Hiuil  run  i  but  the  great  Fault  of  it  is,  that  it  is  a  beg- 
ging the  whole  Queftion  in  Difpute,  let  him  prove  the 
Coniequencfi, 

His  next  [ibid,)  carries  fom^thing  more  of  a  Shew  of 
Peafon,  and  ic  is  but  a  Shew  at  bell  •,  it  is  taken  from  a 
Trcatife  of  their's  concerning  Jntichrift,  The  Paflage  is 
this  :  "  The  third  Work  of  Anticbriii  confift  in  this, 
**  that  he  attributes  the  Regeneration  ot  the  holy  Spirit 
«'  unto  the  dead  outward  Work  (  or  Faith  )  baptizing 
•'  Children  into  that  Faith,  and  teaching,  that  thereby 
^*  Baptifm  and  Regeneration  muft  be  had  ;  and  thereia 
•'  he  confersOrders  and  otherSacraments,and  grpundeth 
*'  therein  ail  his  Chriftianity,  which  is  againft  the  holy 
**  Spirit."  This  Treatife,  Cit  is  faid)  was  written,  A.D. 
1 1 20.  if  there  be  not  a  Miftake  in  the  Date,it  was  com- 
posed earlier  by  many  Years  th^nPFaWs  firfl  Appear 
ance  •,  however  it  is  allowed  to  be  very  ancient,  and  was 
prefer vcd  by  the  Waldenfes  in  the  JlpSy  and  by  divers 
others,  faith  Perin^  from  whom  he  hath  added  it  in  the 
End  of  his  Hiftpry.  -f  But  when,  or  by  whon>foever  it 
was  written,  it  decides  nothing  of  the  main  Queftion,ei- 
ther  tor  or  againft  Infant  Baptifm  :  But  to  any  one  who 
reads  the  PaSage  cited  with  a  due  Attention,  it  muft  ap- 
pear, that  it  was  not  defign'd  to  condemp  fimply  theBap- 
tifm  of  Children  as  a  Fault  or  Abufe  in  the  Antichriftian 
Party,  but  that  it  is  plainly  and  diredtly  levell'd  againft 
that  antichriftian  Doftrine  before  rnentioned,  tjiat  the  Sa- 
craments confer  Grace  by  the  meer  outward  Work  done ; 
which  they  juftly  call  the  dead  outward  fVork^or  a  lifelefs 
PrqfefTion  of  Faith.  Here  they  lay  the  Fault  and  Blame 
whic;h  they  charge  on  the  Papijs  as  aWork  of  Antichrifi^ 

HOC 

t  Firing Hlil.  of th? Waldm/ih  Pu  3.  Book  III.  Ch.  u 


Chap.III.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  169 

not  in  their  baptizing  Children,  but  in  attributing  the 
Regeneration  ot  the  Spirit  in  Bapcifm,  to  the  meer  out- 
ward Adminiftration  oi  the  Ordinance,    whether  to  the 
Adult  or  Infants,  {  only  the  Baptifm  of  Children  is  in- 
ftanc'd  in,  bccaufe  that  was  moll  generally  pradlifed  in 
the  Church)  arid  in  their  laying  the  main  Strefs  of  Chri- 
ftian  Religion  on  fuch  external  lifeiefs  Formalities.    Nor 
do  the  Waldenfes  reckon  the  Bapcifm   of  Infants  amonp- 
the  Errors  of  Popery  which  they  rejeded,  in  any  of  their 
Catechifms,  and  other  Confeflions  of  Faith,  framed  de- 
fignedly  in  Oppofition  to  thofe  Errors,  and  antichriflian 
Abufes,  which  they  decefted.  And  Perin  does  mofl  fully- 
clear  them  from  the  Denial  of  Infanc-Baptifm,  as  aSlan- 
der  of  the  Papifts,  as  we  have  feen.     And  therefore  this 
Paflage  weighs  nothing  againft  that  Evidence,   but  may 
fairly  admit  aConllrudion  confident  with  it.  Our  Author 
goes  fo  far  as  to  own,  '*  That  there  are  indeed  tvvoCon- 
**  feffions  of  theirs,  which  are  faid  to  fpeak  ot  Infant-Bap- 
"  tifm."  But  he  adds  {ibid.)  "  Thefe  are  of  a  lateDate." 
The  latter  of  thefe,  it  is  granted,  bares  Date  a  few  Years 
fmce  the  Beginning  of  the  Reformation  A.  D.  1532.  as 
he  gives  the  Date,  or  i  c^^^^  as  Ferin.     And  he  is  careful 
to  let  us  know,  P.  40,  41.  That  it  was  siiter  George  Morel 
returned  with  Letters  from  CEcolampadius  and  Bitcer  out 
of  Germany^  whither  he  had  been  fent  with  Peter  Majfon^ 
to  confer  with  the  Divines  there,  about  the  Reformation 
of  the  Church  ;  and  infinuates,  as  if  they  had  received 
Convidlion  from  thofe  Divines,   of  the  Error  they  had 
followed  in  denyingBaptifm  to  Infants,  and ^5/  theNotion 
fas  he  Terms  it,  i.  e.  of  baptizing  Infants )  from  them  ; 
which  they  inferted  into  their  ConfelTion.     But  this  is  a 
meer  Surmife  of  our  Author,  that  has  no  Foundation  of 
Proof  in  Hiftory,  but  the  contrary. —  But  that  which  ef- 
fectually baffles  thisSurmife  is,  that  thePaftors  andHeads 
of  the  Churches  afTembled  at  Angrogn^^  to  whom  thofe 
Letters  of  the  German  Divines  were  read  ( tho*  theirCon- 
feflion  bears  fo  late  a  Date,  about  1 5  Years  after  Luther 
began  to  oppofe  the  Pope,  yet  they)  declare,  that  theAr- 

ticks 


x^o         A  Defence  of  the  Divine  RigPjt  Chap.  III. 

tides  of  ic,  which  were  folemnly  figned  and  fworn  to  by 
all  prefent,  were  conformable  to  theDo5irine  that  hath  been 
taught  them,  [rem  the  Father   to  the  Son,  for    thefe  many 
HundredTears^and  taken  out  of  thelVord  of  God  \  utfupra  : 
among  which  is  that  oflnfant-Baptifm.  And  in  theLetters 
written  to  the  IValdenfes  oi Provence  by  CEcolampadius  and 
Bucer^m  the  Year  1 530,  recited  byPm;'/,there  is  no  men- 
tion of  any  Errors  they  were  in,  buc   they  both  blefs'd 
God  for  fo  greatLight  of  Truth  he  had  imparted  to  them 
in  a  dark  Age.  *  So  that  it  is  evident,  that  the  Articles 
then  affented  to,  were  not  drawn  up  upon  any  new  Cou- 
vidion,  as  he  would  make  his  Reader  believe,   but  were 
the  Matter  of  their  Belief,   which  they  had  received  (as 
they  themfelves  declare)  from  the  Father  to  the  Sen,  Time 
cut  of  Mind.    The  Article  that  relates  to  Infant-Baptifm, 
I  have  cited  before  :  And  if  it  mulr  Hand  for  goodEvir 
dence  for  the  ancient  Belief  &  ^vz.Gi\Qt  q{  ihtVValdenfes  -^ 
Dr.  Gill  has  found  out  a  Way  to  weaken  the  Credit  of  it, 
as  an  Evidenceibr  Infant-Baptifm  •,  for  reciting  thatPart 
of  the  Articie,whei-e  they  fay  "  We  receive  theEucharifl 
"  (  or  Lord's  Supper )   to   fliew  that  our  Pcrfeverance 
*'  in  theFaith  is  fuch  as  v«/e  promifed,when  we  were  bap- 
"  tized,being('/////(?/;i/'^/;?/jor  jlittleChildren."  He  adds, 
"  This  Phrafe  being   little  Children,  as. I  think,    means 
"  their  beinglittleChildren  inKnowledge  ^Experience.'* 
A  fine  Thing  it  is,  to  have  a  Faculty  of  making  Words 
to  fignify  juft  what  one  pleafes.  A  Man  with  thisFacuky 
will  never  need  to  fear  being  worded  in  any  Controverfy. 
It  is  but  to  put  a  metaphorical  Meaning  on  ExpreiTions, 
that  are  clear  and  proper,  and  he  may  ward  of  Convidli- 
on  from  the  pi aineit  Evidence  that  Words  can  exprefs. 
Dr.  G^// had  as  good  fay,  \\t  will  not  (land  to  the  Deter- 
mination of  any  human  Teflimony,   as  rcjedl  the  plain 
and  literal  Senfe  of  Words  when  they  make  againft  him, 
where  there  is  no  urgent  Reafon  or  Necefiity  to  recede 
from  it      But  what  Reafon  is  there  that  little  Children 
here,fhould  not  mean  little  Children  i;^  Jge,  but  inKnow- 

ledge, 
»  Hift.  of  the  IVclde.ifcs.  Book  H.  Ch.  4.  . 


Chap.  III.  (?/ Infant-Baptifm,  171 

ledge  and  Experience  ?  The  Pretence  is,  becaufc,  ''  They 
"  fpeak  of  their  receiving  the  Euchariir,  to  fhew  their 
''  Ferfeverance  in  theFaith  they  had  promifed, when  they 
"  were  baptized. —  And  whatPromife  are  Infants  in  a 
"  hteral  Senle  capable  of  making  ?  "  But  knows  he  not 
that  the  Psedobaptifts  teach,  that  even  Infants  are  inBap- 
tifm  by  Virtue  of  God's  Covenant,  laid  under  the  Bond 
of  a  Vow  or  Promife  to  all  the  Duties  of  the  Covenant, 
and  obliged,  when  come  to  a  proper  Age  to  recognize 
this  Vow  or  Promife,  as  their  own,  by  a  perfonal  Pro- 
feiTion  of  Chriftian  Faith  and  Obedience,  and  to  make  it 
good,  zndpew  their  Ferfeverance  in  it  fas  theConfeffion 
properly  exprelles  it)  by  receiving  the  other  Sacrament, 
the  Lord's  Supper  ?  And  tho' '  the  Waldenfes  did  not 
admit  God-Fathers  and  God- Mothers,  according  to  the 
modern  Ufage  •,  yet  they  admitted  Parents  to  be  Spon- 
fors  for  their  Children,  (whom  the  natural  Law,  as  well 
as  the  revealed  Will  o\  God  in  his  Covenant  with  hisPeo- 
ple,  hath  appointed  to  that  Office;  and  others  alfo  when 
Neceffity  required  it,  as  appears  from  the  feveralPaffages 
Lhave  quoted  from  their  Confeffions,  as  when  they  fay, 
'\Chey  to  whom  theChildren  are  neareft  allied^ought  to  prejent 
them  to  Baptifr/iy  and  any  other s^whom  God  hath  made  cha- 
ritable in  this  Kind.  So  that  taking  little  Children  or  In- 
fants in  the  literal  Senfe  in  this  Conteffion,  it  fpeaks  the 
right  Language  of  Paeciobaptifts.  Thus  much  it  was 
needful  to  obferve  of  the  latter  of  thofe  two  Confeflions 
of  zhcPFalden/eSy  which  he  owns  fpeak  of  Infant-Baptifm. 
As  to  their  formerConfe{rioD,that  of  ih^Bohemian^Va Iden- 
fes^  wherein  they  own  Infant-Baptifm  -,  this  bares  Date 
fo  early  as  the  Year  1508,  fome  Years  beiore  L^/Z/rr's 
Reformationy  which  heg^Dy  A.  D,  151 7.  And  therefore  it 
can't  be  pretended,  that  this  Conieffion  v/as  made  in 
Compliance  with  the  firit  Reformers,  in  the  Point  of  Ps- 
dobaptifm.  Vv  hat  tho',  "  They  fay  they  were  faifly 
*'  called  PFaldenfes^'^''  lince  their  Belief  was  one  and  the 
fame  ?  Tho'  they  were  more  properly  the  Difciples  of 
John  liufs^  who  taught  in  Boherma^  having  received  the 

■     Liciht 


't*jz  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  Ill, 

Light  of  Truth  from  the  Books  of  JohnWickliff^  who 
alfo  was  excited  to  oppofe  Fopery,from  the  Example  of 
the  Waldenfes.  *  So  that  their  Faith  and  religiousPrinci- 
ples  were  in  EifecSt  the  fame.  As  to  what  he  adds(P.40.) 
of  the  Pygbards  or  t^icards^  and  the  Bohemian  Brethren, 
mentioned  by  Scultetus^  it  has  been  already  confidered, 
with  proper  Remarks. 

It  is,  I  confefs,  a  tirefome  Bufinefs,to  tranfcribe  all  his 
Quotations,  being  fo  little  to  the  Purpofe  (and  I  iear  the 
Reader's  Patience  is  more  than  fufficiently  exercifcd  aU 
ready)  yet  I  would  crave  Leave  to  recite  one  more,  that 
I  may  give  a  fair  Account  of  his  wholeStrength,and  con- 
ceal nothing  that  he  thinks  makes  for  his  Caufe  :  And 
that  it  may  appear  to  what  Straits  he  is  driven  to  main- 
tain his  Opinion,  when  he  catches  hold  on  fuch  Imperti- 
nences, and  offers  them  asProofs.  It  is,  "  a  brief  Con- 
*'  feflion  of  Faith  (he  fays)  publilh'd  by  the  Reformed 
"  Churches  of  Piedmont^  fo  late  as  A,  D.  1655."  The 
PafTage  he  cites  out  of  it,hefays,(if  we  will  take  his  Word) 
is,  "  in  Favour  of  Adult-Baptifm"(i.e.of  Adult-Baptifm 
only  in  the  Stnk  of  the  Antip^dobaptifts)  the  PafTage 
is  this.  Pa,  42.  "  That  God  does  not  only  inftrud:  and 
*'  teach  us  by  hisWord,but  has  alfo  ordained  certain  Sa-. 
**  craments  to  bejoined  with  it,  as  a  Means  to  unite  us 
"  toChrij[l,and  to  make  us  Partakers  of  hisBencfits.  And 
"  there  are  only  two  of  them  belonging  in  common  tp 
*'  all  the  Members  of  the  Church  under  theNew-Tefta- 
"  ment,  i^/z.Baptifm,  and  the  Lord's  Supper  -,  thatGod 
"  has  ordained  theSacrament  of  Baptifm  to  be  aTeltimo- 
*'  ny  of  our  Adoption,  and  of  our  being  clcanfed  from 
*'  our  Sins  by  the  Blood  of  Jefus  Chrift,  and  renewed  in 
*'  Holinefs  of  Life."  But  what  of  all  this  to  the  contro- 
verted Point .?  He  adds,  "  Nor  is  there  one  Word  in  it 
of  Infant-Baptifm."  Finely  argued  !  This  Gentleman 
may  go  on  at  this  Rate  to  write  Volumes  of  Quotations 
agamft  Infant-Baptifm,and  that  even  from  the  Books  and 
Writings  of  the  P^cdobaptifts.     For,it  feems,if  he  lights 

f  See  Ptrin.  ibid.  Book  II,  Ch.  9. 


Ghap.  III.  of  Infant-Baptlfm.  17^ 

on  a  PafTage  in  any  Author,  that  fpeaks  of  Baptifm,  and 
there  be  no  exprefs  mention  made  ot  In  fan- -Baptifm,  he 
will  without  morcAdoe,  prefs  it  into  his  Service  ;  and  it 
IhaJl  be  a  goodArgument  inFavour  of  Adult -Baptifm,  in 
his  Senfe,  i.  e.  exciufive  of  Infants.  But  if  there  he  not 
a  Word  in  it  of  Infant -Baptifm  5  is  there  a  Word  againft 
it  ?  or  that  tends  to  exclude  them  ?  Not  one  Word  % 
unlefs  he  fuppofrsInfantsuncapableofSalvationbyChrift. 
Otherwife,  there  are  divers  Things  in  this  very  Paflage, 
that  looks  favourably  onlnfant- Baptifm  As/ry^,Intants 
are  capable  of  being  united  to  Chrijly  and  partaking  of  his 
Benefits  ;  which  is  owned  and  declared  to  be  the  Thing 
reprefented,  and  fignified  by  the  Sacrament  of  Baptifm, 
as  the  outward  Sign,and  Means  ;  otherwife,Infants  muft 
perifheternally,  dying  in  Infancy  :  which  I  cannot  think 
thofe  reformed  Churches  werefo  uncharitable,  as  tofup- 
pofe,  of  all  Infants.  And  can  any  one  doubt,  that  they 
are  as  capable  of  the  Remedy  byChrift,as  they  are  of  Sin 
and  Death  derived  to  them  from  the  firft  Adam  ?  What 
then  fhould  hinder  their  partaking  of  the  outward  Sign, 
unlefs  Chrift  had  exprefs'd  his  Will  to  the  contrary  ; 
which  he  has  never  done.  Secondly.  The  Infants  of  Be- 
lievers are  Members  of  Chrift's  Church  under  the  New- 
Teftament ;  Chrift  having  declared,  that  of  fuch  is  the 
Kingdom  of  God  ;  therefore  the  Sacrament  of  Baptifm  be- 
longs to  them  :  for  they  confefs  //  belongs  to  all  theMem- 
hers  of  the  Churchy  under  the  New-Teftamcnt,  Thirdly^ 
Infants  need,  and  are  capable  of  being  cleanfed  from  ori- 
ginal Defilement  hy  the  Blood  of  Chrijt  •,  and  the  Infants 
of  Believers  belonging  to  his"Church,it  is  his  Will  plainly 
enough  fignified  in  the  New-Teftament,that  they  fhould 
enjoy  the  inftitutcd  Means  (they  are  capable  of)  of  the 
Application  of  the  cleanfing  Virtue  of  his  Blood,  which 
is  Baptifm.  So  that  this  Quotation,  inftead  of  proving 
any  Thing  in  Favour  of  Adult- Baptifm  peculiarly,  fur- 
niihes  us  with  feveral  good  Arguments  for  Infant  Baptifm. 
Yet  here  he  fets  up  his  Trophie,  and  fays,  "  Upon  the 
;^  whole,  it  will  be  eafdy  feen,   what  little  Reafon  the 

"  Writer 


174         A  Defence  of  the  Dhine  Right  Chap. III. 

*'  Writer  of  the  Dialogue  under  Confideration,  had  to 
«  fay,  -that  the  ancient  IValdenjes  being  in  the  conftant 
«<  Pradlice of Adult-Baptifmjs  aChimericallmagination, 
«*  and  a  groundlefsFigment."  NoManJ  am  perfuaded, 
without  Dr.  G/7/'s  Spedacles,  is  able  to  Mccrn^upon  the 
Whole^  the  lead  Evidence  in  all  that  he  has  alledg'd,  to 
weaken  that Aifertion  of  theWriter  of  the  Dialogue.  Yet 
he  has  the  Confidence  to  fay>  "There  is  nothing  appears 
."  to  the  contrary,but  that  they  were  in  thePradtice  of  sr, 
*'  (i.  e.  of  Adult-Baptifm  only)  until  the  fixteenth  Cen- 
*'  tury ;  for  what  is  urged  againft  it,  is  fince  thatTime." 
p.  43.  I  anfwer,  tho'  thofe  ConfefTions  of  the  Waldenfes^ 
which  contain  full  Proof  of  their  being  in  the  Pra6tice  of 
infant- Baptifm,  were  drawn  up  a  little  after  the  Begin- 
ning of  the  fixteenth  Century  •,  yet  therein  they  declare 
not  only  what  their  prefent  Belief  and  Praftice  was,  but 
alfo  that  it  was  no  other  than  what  had  been  taught 
among  them  from  Father  to  Son,  for  feveral  Hundred 
Years  before  the  Reformation.  And  who  fhould  better 
know  what  their  Opinion  and  Pra6lice  was,  in  Reference 
to  Infant-Baptifm,  than  the  WaUenfes  themfelves,  attefl- 
ing  it  from  theirown  ancientRecords  ?  And  this  (IDoubt 
not, mod  Men  will  judge)  carries  an  Appearance  of  fome- 
thing  to  the  contrary  of  what  he  pretends.  And  it  is  cer- 
tain,thatourAdverfaries  cannot  produce  any  more  ancient 
ConfelTion  of  theirs  that  contradids  thefe,  or  make  for 
their  Side  of  the  Queftion.  And  what  ourAuthor  has  al- 
ledg'd to  the  contrary  is  of  no  Confideration  againft  the 
preponderating  Evidence,  which  thefe  ConfefTions  that  I 
have  cited,carry  in  them.  Yet  he  will  have  it,whether  he 
has  any  Evidence  for  it  or  no,  that  the  Waldenfes  were  in 
Pfa6lice  of  Adult-Baptifm,  till  the  fixteenth  Century  : 
And  fays  moreover,  (ibid.)  that  "  even  at  thatTime there 
*'  were  fome  that  continued  in  the  Practice  of  it." 

And  on  this  Occafion  he  brings  in  the  Teftimony  of 
Ludovicus  Fives  to  the  ancient  Pradice  of  Baptifm.  His 
Words  are  (in  his  Comment  on  Aufiin's  Book  de  civitate 
Dei)  ''Formerly  no  Peiion  was  brought  to  iheholyBap- 

tiftary, 


cc 


Zhap.  III.  cf  Infant-Baptifm.  175 

^iftary,till  he  was  of  aduItAge,  &c."  And  one  (hall  (carce 
ead  a  Pamphlet  written  by  Antip^dobaptift,  whereia 
his  Teftimony  of  Lttdovicus  Fives  is  omited  -,  anAuthor 
who  fiourifh'd  in  the  Begir>ningof  the  fixteenthCentury, 
and  who  was  as  little  capable  of  giving  a  true  Account 
Df  thePradlice  of  the  ancient  Church  in  baptizing,  as  any 
It  this  Diftance  of  Tinrje.  And  the  fame  Author  adds, 
I  hear  in  fome  Cities  of  Italy ^  the  old  Cuftom  is  ftill  in 
a  greatMeafure  preferved."  HereDr.G/7/afks,  "  What 
People  fhould  he  mean  by  fome  Cities  in  Italy ^  unlefs 
theRemainders  of  i\\tPetrobrufians^ovJ^Valdenfes^  as  Dr. 
JVall  obferves."  But  this  is  an  unfair  Reprefentation, 
'^T.lVaUis  fo  far  from  obferving  this,  that  he  rather 
queftions  theTruth  of  the  Report  that  Fives  had  heard ; 
only  on  Suppofition  of  ^the  Truth  of  that  Report,he  con- 
efbures,  they  might  be  Tome  Remnants  of  the  oldPetro- 
hrujlans^  not  of  the  VFaldenfes.  And  there  needs  no  other 
Anfwer  to  this  wholeTeftimony  of  hudovicus  Fivesyihzn 
vfhz.tDr.Wall has  given  -,  whofe  Words  I  fhall  fet  down 
n^iore  largely  (that  the  Reader  may  judge  of  theFairnefs 
hd  Integrity  of  this  Quoter  of  Authors)  which  are  as 
?rllt)ws :  "  Since  this  Fives  liv'd  fo  littlevvhile  ago,  and 
•'produces  no  Proof  out  of  any  Author  to  confirm  his 
'  Opinion  ;  his  affirming  anyThing  concerning  any  old 
''  Cuflom,  is  of  no  moreAuthorlty,  than  if  anyone  now 
^"^  living  fhould  fay  the  fame,without  producing  hisProof; 
*  efpecially  fince  he  w^s  but  a  young  Man  when  he 
"  wrote  this — and  confefTes,  that  as  for  Divinity,  which 
was  none  of  his  Profeffion,  he  minded  it  only  fo  far  as 
his  other  Studies  would  give  him  Leave.  And  it  is 
buta  flenderOccafion  given  hi mfrom5/.y^;//?/Vs Words, 
to  fay  any  fuch  Thing  :  For  St.  Auftin  is  only  fpeak- 
ing  of  fome  baptized  at  the  Age  of  Underftanding, 
without  the  leafl  Intimation  that  they  wereChildren  of 
Chriftian  Parents.  And  for  the  Cities  of  //<3/y, which 
he  mentions,  I  think  no  Body  ever  heard  of  them  be- 
fore, norfince  ;  unlels'we  will  fuppofe  that  fome  Re- 
mainders of  the  Petrobrufians^  who  are  faid  about  400 

Years 


176        A  Defence  of  the  'Divine  Eight        Chap. III. 

**  Years  before /^/T'^'sTime,to  have  been  Jntip^edobaptifls 
«  —  might  continue  that  Practice  in  fome  ol  theValiies 
•^  o^  Piedmont. ''W  Nowwhat  a  differentTurn  has  ourAu-f 
thorgiven  to  thereWords,in  bringing  inDr./F^//^as  obferv- 
ing  that  this  People  mentioned  by  Fives  (without  any 
Linaitation)  were,  *'  the  Remainders  of  the  Petrobruji' 
«*  ans^  or  IFaldenfes,  who  continued  that  Pradice  in  the 
««  YdiVicsoi  Piedmont  ?  "  And  his  followingObfervation 
(tho'  true)  will  not  help  his  Caufe,  as  he  intends  it,  viz. 
«*  That  there  were  different  Se  is  that  went  all  by  the 
"  Name  of  JValdenfeSy  fome  of  very  bad  Principles,fome 
<^  were  Manichees^  and  held  other  Errors  •,  and  therefore 
**  it  was  not  to  be  wondered  at,  that  fome  bearing  this 
^'  Name,  were  for  Infant- Baptilm,  and  others  not."  For 
the  Truth  is,  ("as  has  been  made  evident  by  theTeftimo- 
nies  above  cited,)  "  That  thofe  that  denied  Infant-Bap- 
'*  tifm  were  of  bad  Principles  in  other  Rerpe6ls,and  held 
*'  otherErrors  ;  and  being  tainted  more  or  lefs  with  the 
*'  M^«/V^^rt«  Opinions,  moft  of  them,  if  not  all,  denied 
*'  all  Baptifm  with  Water.**  He  concludes  (ibid.)  that 
*<  it  will  not  be  denied,  that  of  late  Years,  Infant- Bap- 
•'  tifm  has  obtained  among  them  •,  but  that  the  ancient 
*'  Waldenfes  practis'd  it,wants  Proof."  Is  this  the  migh- 
ty ChampioHjwho  appear*d  with  fo  muchDifdain  againfl 
the  Saying  of  the  Writer  of  the  Dialogue,  that  the  (Vol- 
dcnfes  being  in  the  confiant  Practice  cf  Adult- Baptifm f^?i% 
a  groundkfs  Figment  ?  Whom  therefore,  I  had  thought 
he  had  undertaken  to  confute,  by  laying  down  the  folid 
Grounds  and  Reafons  of  theoppofite  Opinion,  as  it  was 
incumbent  on  him  to  do,  by  the  Rules  of  Difputation  5 
yet  as  being  confcious  of  his  Failure  herein,  he  lowers  his 
Confidence,  and  concludes  in  the  Language  of  a  Defen- 
dant, "  That  the  ancient  Waldenfes  pradis'd  Infant- 
'^  Baptifm,  wantsProof"  I  have  produc'd  good  Proof, 
that  the  proptr  JValdenfes,  as  diflinguifhed  from  the  o^ 
ther  Seds  that  went  under  their  Name,  were  ever  in  the 
Praftics  of  Infant  Baptifm,  as- far  as  we  are  able  to  learn 

from 
I  Wairs  im.  Part  II.  Ch.  2,    §.  3. 


Chap.  III.  ^/ Infant-Baptlfm.  177 

from  their  ancient  Records.  And  if  this  Proof  be  not 
fatisfadory,  I  am  pretty  confident,  our  Adverfaries  are 
unable  to  produce  any  tolerable  Proof  to  the  contrary  ; 
but  till  they  do  this,  we  are  to  be  juftified  in  rejeding 
their  Opinion,  that  the  ancient  IValdenfes  were  in  the 
conftant  Pradice  of  Adult-Baptifm,  as  a  chimericallma- 
gination. 

Thus  I  have  endeavour'd  to  vindicate  Matter  of  P'ad, 
that  the  Baptifm  of  Infants  has  obtain'd  in  theUniverfal 
Church,  in  a  conftant  Succellion,  from  the  Apoftles  to 
the  Times  of  the  Reformation,  againft  the  Exceptions 
of  Dr.Gill  •,  wherein  I  confefs,  I  have  been  carried  out  to 
a  far  greater  Length  than  ever  I  defigned  :  But  fince  he 
took  Occafion  from  a  very  few  Lines  in  the  Dialogue  to 
enlarge  as  he  has  done,on  theHiftory  of  Fafis,in  a  whole 
Chapter  ;  I  perceived  him  to  be  full  of  the  Subjed,  and 
to  lay  a  mighty  Strefs  upon  it.  I  was  willing  therefore 
to  take  a  little  Pains  to  looK  into  it,  and  have  particu- 
larly and  carefully,  and  (  I  hope  )  impartially  examin'd 
all  his  Arguments  and  Allegations  fromAuthoricies  •,  nor 
have  I  defignedly  over-look'd  any  Thing  that  he  or  his 
Party  may  judge  material.  And  I  was  the  rather  induc'd 
to  do  it,for  thefe  tv/o  Ends  efpecially, 

Fhft,  To  fliew  the  Vanity  andEmptinefs  of  theBoafts, 
of  our  Adverfaries,  and  to  difabufe  the  illiterate  Vulgar, 
who  are  apt  to  beimpos'd  upon  by  confident  A  iTertions, 
back'd  with  a  large  Colleilion  of  Quotations,  &  a  greac 
many  Names  of  Authors  -,  with  which  the  Antipaedo- 
baptift  Writers, affed  to  ftuff  theirBooks  andPamphlers  ; 
thereby  making  a  Shew,as  if  they  had  thejudgment  of  all 
the  moftLearned,  Ancient  &Modern,on  theirSide  :  And 
the  common  People  for  V\^ant  of  Reading,  being  unable 
todiftinguifh  of  Times,  Perfons,andothcrCircumftance?., 
and  uncapable  of  judging  of  the  Credit  and  Authority 
of  a  Writer,  whofeName,perhaps,  they  have  never  heard 
of  before ;  not  knovN^ing  but  thm LtidcvkusFhes^is  as  good 
an  Evidence  for -the  Pradice  of  the  primitive  Church,  a^ 
Iransuiy  Cjpiajt,QX  Juffin  -,  are  apt  to  b€  deluded  with 

N  this 


178  A  Defence  of  the  Bivim  Righi        Chap.  III. 

this  Pretence.  Whereas  if  their  Authorities  be  fearch'd 
to  the  Bottom,  they  commonly  appear  to  be  but  an 
empty  Flourifh,  as  being  either  m.ifreprefented  f  which  is 
not  uncommon)  or  impertinent,  and  mifappKed,  or  at 
lead  ambiguous  and  uncertain,  from  whence  nothing  can 
be  concluded  or  depended  on  as  the  Truth.  And  how- 
far  this  may  be  truly  faid  of  Dr.  G/7/'s  Way  of  Manage- 
ment in  his  Quotations  hitherto,  is  left  to  the  difcreeC 
Reader  to  judge,  upon  a  calm  and  impartial  weighing  of 
the  Remarks  already  made.  And  if  Antip^sdobaptifm 
be  an  Error,  (as'  will  be  more  fully  evinc'd  hereafter) 
and  an  Error  which  (  as  Experience  fliews  )  has  a  Ten- 
dency to  unfettle  People's  Minds,  even  in  other  Points 
of  Religion,  and  to  draw  them  off  from  thePrinciples  of 
a  religious  Education  receiv'd  in  their  Childhood,  cau- 
fing  them  to  wander  from  the  Footfteps  of  the  Flock,  to 
the  Diflurbance  of  thePeace  andOrder  of  the  Churches  5 
it  muft  be  accounted  a  Piece  of  Charity  toMen'sSouls,to 
lay  open  the  Fallacies  whereby  they  are  in  Danger  of 
being  drawn  into  that  Error,  and  to  prevent  their  being 
impos'd  upon  by  the  Patrons  of  it,  by  their  abufed 
Authorities,and  to  clear  up  and  vindicate  theTruth  that 
is  difguis'd  and  perverted  thereby.  This  has  been  de- 
iign'd  and  endeavoured  in  the  foregoing  Remarks,  and,, 
I  hope,not  without  Succefs,  to  an  impartial  Judgment. 

Secondly^  To  furnifh  out  a  confirming  Evidence  of  the 
divine  Right  of  infant-Baptifm,  which  may  appear  from 
the  foregoing  Remarks,  thefe  twoWays, 

FirJ}^  From  the  Abfurdity  of  the  contraryHypothefis. 
For  if  Infant-Baptifm  be  not  aninititution  of  JefusChriff, 
bxit  a  mecr  Nullity,  as  our  Adverfaries  affirm  •,  then  it 
muil  be  faid,  that  the  Church  has  loft  an  Ordinance  of 
Jefus  Chrift,  for  many  Hundred  Years,  and  even  from 
the  earlieft  Times  of  Chriftianity,  that  we  have  any  cer- 
tain Account  of  ;  then  the  Subjeds.of  ChriU's  Kingdom 
have  been  without  the  vifiblc  Badge  of  Difcrimination 
from  the  reft  of  theWorld,  for  fo.  long  Time,contrary  to 
the  Ddign  of  Chnll's  loft'itution  j  then  the  Laws  &  Or- 
dinances 


Chap.  III.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  179 

dinances  of  the  Kingdom  of  Chrift,are  not  perpetual, and 
unchangeable,  as  the  Scriptures  reprefent  them  to  be ; 
then  it  will  be  difficult  to  account  for  the  Fulfilment  of 
Chrift's  promifed  Prefence  to  hi*?  Minifbers  in  theAdmi- 
niftration    of  Baptifni,    always  even  to   the  End  of  the 
World.     All  which  moil  manifcllAbfurdities,  are  confe- 
qucnt  on  the  Denial  of  Infant-Baptifm  ;  for  I  have  made 
it  appear  from  Authors  of  good  Credit,that  Infant-Bap^- 
tifm  conftantly  and  generally  obtained  in  the  primitive 
Church  :  Some  of  the  mod  ancient  Fathers  teitify,  that 
it  was  taught  and  pra6tis'd  from  the  Age  ot  theApcftles ; 
nor  is  there  any  Account  to  be  given  of  the  Time,  Man- 
ner, or  Perfons,  when,  how,  or  by  whom,  it  was  firfl  in- 
troduc'd  into  theChurch,  if  it  was  not  an  Inilitution  from 
the  Beginning  of  Chriftianity.     Sorfie  Ei^rors'&  Corrup- 
tions,'tis  grantedjmay  fo  infenfibly  creep  into  theChurch, 
as  that  it  may  be  hard  to  Account  for  the  nrft  Rife  orBe- 
ginning  ok  them  :  Yet  that  a  Practice  fo  publick  &  no- 
torious to  all  Chriliians,  as  that  of  Baptifm  is,  fhould  b6 
chang'd  from  it's  firit  In{Litution,and  that  in'fucli  a  De- 
gree, as  to  become  quite  null  and  void  •,  and  that  too,  in 
the  primitive  and  pureft  Times  of  the  Church,   without 
any  Oppofition,  at  leaft  with  the  general  Silence  of  all  an- 
cient Writers   f whole  Writings  are  extant)   about  fucli 
Oppofition,  or  about  the  Time,   or  A^uthors'of  fuch  a 
Change,  or  the  Meiins  by  which  it  was  eftefledjis  utterly 
beyond  all  Belief     N'or   is   there  any  Account  for  the 
firil400  Years  after  Chriil,   nor    any  Shadow  of  Proof, 
that  there  was  any  Se6l  of   Chriftians,  or  Body  of  Men, 
that  may  be  called  a  Church,  owning  ChriflianBaptifm, 
that  denied  it  to  Infants  :     Nor  any  one  Man  in  that  Pe- 
riod that  objecfted  againft  it,  except  Terttdlia?7ynoY  did  he 
condemn  it  as  unlawful  ;  but  only  advis'd  the  Delay  of 
it,  as  more  profitable.     Nor  is  there  any  Evidence  at  all 
that  it  was  oppos'd  by  any  one  Man,  for  the  Space  of  fix 
or  feven  Hundred  Years   from   that  Period  :   But   the 
Practice  continued  in  the  Univerfal  Church  without  In- 
terruption or  Excepticm,  (  fo  far  as  can  be  knovv'n  from 

N  2  the 


i8o  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  IIL 

the  Writings    and  Monuments  of  Antiquity  )  till  about 
the  i2thCe"ntury,?^/^r^rw/V,and  his  Followers  inFr^;;r^, 
are  laid  to  renounce  it ,   a  Scd  that  continued  but  a  fhort 
Time,  and  dwindled  away  :  Whereof  yet  there   is  but 
probable  Evidence  at  befl.     And  as  to  the  proper  WaU 
denfes^Luther's  Fore-runners,  their  oppofing  Intant-Bap- 
tifm,and  being  found  only  in  thePradice  of  Adult-Bap- 
tifm,  for  all  that  has  hitherto  appear'd,  deferves  no  better 
Name, than  that  of  a  Chimera^or  groiindlefs  Fi5fion.    And 
Dr.  Gz7/,  notvv'ithftanding  all  his  Pains,  has  lail'd  of  pro- 
ducing any   tolerable  Evidence  of  it ;  and  until  he,  or 
feme  others,. -do  it  more  effedually,  I  cannot  doubt  but 
that  theEvidences  produc'd  from  their  ownConfefiions  to 
prove,that  it  was  an  uncontrovertedPradice  among  them 
to  baptize  their  Children,  will  be  efleem'd  unexceptio- 
nable.    It  may  therefore,  I  think,   upon  good  Grounds 
\)p  concluded,  that  the  Baptifm  of  Infants  was  the  con- 
flant  Practice  of  the  Univerfal  C  hurch  from  the  Begin - 
Xiing,  with  little  or  no  Oppofition,  till  the  Germa?i  Ana- 
haf  lifts-  arofe  in  the  Age  ot  the  Reformation.    And  con- 
fidering  the  knov/nCharafters  andPradices  of  thofeMen, 
It  feems  very  unlikely  thatChrift  fliould  afford  them  fuch 
Marks  of  his  extraordinary  Prefence,  as  to  improve  them 
as  the  Infiruments  of  reftoring  any  of  his  Laws,  that  had 
been  loft  or-,negle61:ed.  But  now  if  Infant-Baptifm  be  not 
the  Inilitutjon  of  Chrift,    or  if  it  be  fubftitured  to  the 
making  void  his  true  Inftitution, I 'cannot  fee  how  we  can 
avoid  thofe  intolerable  Abfurdities  before  mentioned.    It 
remains  then,  that  we  ought  to  conclude   it  to  be  truly 
his  Inftitution,  which  he  has  preferv'd, together  with  the 
other  Sacrament,  thro'  all  Succellions  of  the  Church,and 
will  preferve  as  his  Memorial,  thro'  all  Generations. 

Secondly^  l^he  Pradice  of  the  UniverfalChurch  makes 
out  a  confirming  Evidence,  as  it  interprets  to  us,  and 
eftabliflies  the  Senfeof  thofe  Scripture- PaiTages,  whence 
\ve  prove  the  Pvight  ot  Infants  to  Baptifm.  GoodPrece- 
dents  are  allow'd  to  be  of  Ufe  to  explain  and  fettle  the 
meaning  of  a  doubtful  Lav>^  ;  tho'   the   Pradice  of  the 

Church 


Chap.  IV.  /?/ Infant- Baptifm.  iSi 

Church  be  not  our  Warrant  for  baptizing  Infants  -,  yet 
it  may  help  to  dired:  us  to  the  rightSenfe  of  thofeScrip- 
ture-Teftimonies  that  are  fo  ;  fuppofing  them  to  have 
been  doubtful  before  •,'  and  thofe  to  whom  they  appear 
doubtful,  ought  in  all  Reafon  to  be  determined  by  the 
Practice  of  the  UniverfalChurch,  efpecially  of  the  primi- 
tive Chriftians,  by  whom,  it  is  rationally  to  be  fuppos'd, 
this  Law  of  Chrift  was  reduc'd  to  Pradice,-  according  to 
the  true  Intent  and  Meaning  of  it.  If  therefore  the  Evi- 
dence produced  of  this  Pradtice  of  the  Church  be  of  fuf- 
ficient  Weight,  as  I  cannot  but  think  it  will  appear,  to 
Perfons  at  Liberty  from  Prejudices  and  PrepofTeirionSjto 
confider  Matters  impartially  •,  this  alone  may  fufficeto 
put  an  IlTue  to  the  Controverfy.  Tho*  indeed,  the 
Grounds  from  Scripture  for  the  Pra6lice  of  Infant-Bap- 
tifm,  are  not  fo  doubtful,  as  fome  would  reprefent  therrk 
But  this  will  be  the  Subject  of  our  Difquiruions,  in  the 
two  next  Chapters. ■ 

Chap.     IV. 

The  Title  of  Chriftian  Infants  to  Baptifm, 
founded  on  their  Cove?iant-l72tereJi^ 
proved  and  vindicated. 

I^I^I^AVING  in  the  two  foregoing  Chapters,difcufs'd 
1^  hi|^  at  large  theConfequences  of  theDenial  of  Infant- 
2^1^^  Baptifm,  and  efpoufing  the  Principles  of  Anti- 
psdobaptifm  ;  and  examin'd  the  Antiquity  of  the  Prac- 
tice of  baptizing  Infants^and  prov'd  it,  (Ithinkby  unex- 
ceptionableEvidence, )  to  have  obtain'd  from  the  earlieft 
Times  of  Chri{lianity,inOpporition  to  Dr.  Gih'^  Remon- 
(Irances  ?  I  come  at  lengh  to  confider  and  difcufs  Matter 
'  of  Right ;  and  to  vindicate  thofeTeftimonies  of  Scripture 
oi\  which  this  Pradice  is  founded.  The  mainFoundatioa 

N  3  of 


i  S  2  A  Defence  of  the  Divwe  Right         Ch  a  p.  IV, 

of  the  Right-  of  Infants  to  Baptifm,  I  conceive  to  be  the 
Intereil  of  the  Seed  of  the  Faithful  in  the  Covenant  of 
their  Parents,  to  whom  the  conftant  Tenor  of  the  divine 
Promifes  in  theScriptures,both  of  theOld  &  New-Tefba- 
menc  hath  been,  ,to  be  a  God  to  them  and  to  their  Seed  ; 
and  am  of  Opinion,  that  all  the  other  Arguments  from 
Scripture,  whereby  thisRii^ht  of  Infants  hath  been  juftly 
and  ilrongly  defended,  may  be  reduc'd  to  this  Head  j  as 
they  receive  their  Force  andEvidence  from  theCovenant- 
Intered  of  theChildren  of  Believers.  If  it  could  be  prov'd 
that  fuch  Children  are  excluded  from  all  Interell  inGod's 
Covenant  of  Mercy  and  Salvation  through  Jefus  Chrift 
.with  fallen  Man,  it  will  be  own'd  to  be  a  truitlefs  At- 
tempt to  go  about  to  prove  their  Title  to  Baptifm  ;  for 
in  that  Cafe,  they  mull:  be  left  in  the  Ruins  of  Man's 
Apoftacy  irrecoverably,  at  leaft  till  they  arrive  to  Adult 
Age  ;  and  dying  in  Infancy  muft  be  left  without  Hope 
or  PofTibility  of  Salvation,  according  to  the  ordinary 
revealed  Method  of  the  Difpenfation  of  God's  Grace. 
For  to  be  an  Alien  to  the  Covenant^  is  the  fame  Thing  as 
to  be  without  Chrift^  aad  without  Hop.  (Eph.  2.i2.)But 
if  on  the  other  Hand,  it  be  made  to  appear  from  good 
ScriptiTre  Teftimonies,  that  the  Infants  of  the  Church, 
have  been  all  along  taken  in  with  their  Parents,  into 
Ood's  Covenant  with  them,  it  may  with  no  great  Diffi- 
culty be  argu'd  thence,  that  they  have  an  undoubted 
Right  to  Baptifm.  For  the  Covenant  and  the  Seal  are 
in  the  Reafon  of  the  Thing,and  by  God's  Appointment, 
of  equal  Extent  to  Subjects  capable.  And  this  appears 
from  the  whole  Tenor  of  Scripture,  that  in  all  the  T  ranf- 
adions  of  God'sCovenant  with  Man,  in  everyExhibition 
and  Difpenfation  of  it,  Children  have  been  included  wiih 
their  Parents  :  And  particularly,  eminently  and  moil 
exprefly  in  the  Covenant  v;ith  Abraham.,  whom  God  ex- 
traordinarily raifed  up  to  be  not  only  the  greatPratriarch' 
of  theChurch  oHfrael,  but  of  all  Believers  under  theGof- 
pel,vv'ho  are  exprefly  declared  in  theNew-Teftament  to  be 
theSeed  oi  At>rakam^  (Rom,  4,  16.  Gal. -3.19. )to  whom 

God's 


Chap.  IV.  of  Infant-Baptifm,  183 

God's  Covenant  and  Promife  was,  to  he  aGod  to  him  and 
to  bis  Seed  after  him  in  their  Generation  ;  whichCovenant 
and  Promife  was  declared  to  be  an  everlalfing  Covenant^ 
being  defign'd  to  abide  in  the  fame  immutable  Tenor, 
even  under  the  Gofpel,  to  the  End  of  the  World,  as  it 
was  firft  eflablifhed  by  God  to  Abraham  and  his  Seed  for 
ever  ;  as  the  infpired  Virgin-Mother  of  our  Lord  in  her 
Song  of  Praife  declares,  Luk.  1.53.  And  therefore  the 
Author  of  the  Dialogue,  very  juftly  and  confonantly  to 
Scripture,  gathers  from  the  Conftitution  of  this  Cove- 
nant, with  the  annexed  Seal  of  Circumcifion,  a  good  and 
fufficient  Warrant  for  the  Baptifm  of  Infants  under  the 
Gofpel. 

Dr.  G///,  I  find,  has  very  little  to  fay  in  diredl  Anfwer 
to  the  Arguments  produced  in  the  Dialogue.  But  he 
advances  a  new  Scheme  of  Notions  concerning  theCove- 
nanc,  but  fo  perplexed  and  confufed,  and  fo  wide  of  all 
Foundation  in  Scripture,  that  one  might  almoft  venture 
to  fay,  it  leems  defignedly  invented  to  fecure  an  Hypc- 
thefiSy  and  to  evade  the  Force  of  the  Argument  from  the 
Covenant  that  infers  the  Right  of  Chnftian  Infants  to 
Baptifm.  He  pretends  the  Covenant  with  Mraham  was 
not  a  Covenant  of  Grace,  but  rather  of  Works  :  And 
yet  allows  it  in  fome  Refpedts  to  be  a  pure  Covenant  of 
Grace,  but  not  as  fuch  to  comprehend  Infants.  And  as 
to  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  he  has  very  odd  and  ftrange, 
and  I  am  fure,  unfcriptural  Notions  about  it  •,  as  that  the 
Covenant  of  Grace  was  made  with  all  that  ever  had,  or 
fhall  have  an  Intereft  in  it,from  Everlafting.  The  Ab- 
furdity  of  which  Conceit,  I  have  already  fufficiently  ma- 
nifelled.  *  But  I  am  alfo  to  take  Notice  of  the  Ground 
of  this  Error,in  his  confounding/^^  Covenant  of  Redemp- 
tion  made  with  Chrift  the  Mediator,  with  the  Covenant  of 
Grace  made  with  Believers  in  him.  He  feems  to  admit 
no  Covenant  of  Grace  made  with  any  Man  in  Time,but 
that  which  was  made  with  the  Son  of  God,  the  defigned 
Mediator  and  Redeemer  before  the  World  began  ;  And 

N  4  fays 

*  Chap.  ir. 


1 84         A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.IV. 

fays  exprefly,  that  "The  Covenant  of  Grace  is  not  made 
*'  with  any  Man. —  And  when  at  any  Time  we  read  of 
*'  a  Covenant  of  Grace  being  made  with  particular Per- 
"  forts,  it  mull  always  be  underftood  of  making  it  ma- 
"  nifeil  to  them,  &c."  P.  47.  In  fhort  his  Scheme  feems 
Xo  be  entirely Antinomian,  as  far  as  can  be  gather'dfrom 
his  Expreflions,  importing,  that  Men  may  really  have  an 
Intereft  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  and  be  poflefs'd  of 
the  Privileges  of  it,  Pardon,  Juftilication,  &c.  all  the 
Time  of  their  Impenitency  in  Sin,before  Faith  andRege- 
neration,  yea  fromEverlafling  ;  that  Faith  is  not  require- 
ed  to  their  having  an  Intereft  in  the  Covenant,  but  only 
that  it  might  be  manifefted  to  them,  &  that  they  might 
have  the  AlTurance  and  Comfort  of  it  •,  that  all  wa? 
tranfacled  in  and  with  Chrift  their  Head  and  Reprefen- 
tative,  before  ever  they  had  a  Being  ;  and  that  all  the 
Benefits  and  Privileges  of  the  Covenant  are  fo  purely 
of  divine  Grace,  as  to  exclude  not  only  the  Merit  of 
Works  on  our  Part,  fwhich  is  granted^  but  all  Conditi- 
ons and  Terms  of  Duty  required  of  us ;  for  he  fays  not 
.only,That  theCovenant  of  Grace  is  not  made  with  Man, 
but  that  it  is  not  to  be  kept  byMan^nov  can  it  be  broken  by 
Man,  P.  45,  46.  All  which  confident  AfTertions,  arc 
void  of  any  Grounds  in  Scripture,  yea  contrary  to  plain 
Scripture,  as  has  been  partly  fhewn  already  •,  and  1  fhall 
now  fhew  it  more  fully. 

And  therefore  I  find  it  necelTary,  before  I  come  to  a 
dired  Confideration  of  what  he  has  to  objed  againft  this 
Argument  from  the  Covenant,that  a  few  Things  be  pre- 
mifed,  for  the  better  underftandingtheForce  &  Propriety 
of  this  Argument,which  I  Iliall  lay  down  in  feveral  Pro- 
pofitions  and  Dillindions,  for  clearing  up  the  Scripture* 
Dodtrine  of  the  Covenant,  fo  far  as  it  relates  to  the  pre- 
fcntDifpute  •,  which  being  well  fupported  from  the  Word 
of  God,  and  duly  attended  to,  it  will  require  no  great 
Pains  to  deted:  the  Sophiflry  of  ali  his  Arguments  and 
Objc^^ions.  Error,  I  kncv/,  is  no  Friend  to  Diftindions, 
whereby  it  is  driven  out  Qf  its  lurking  Places  j  for  it  de- 
lights 


Chap.  IV.  <?/ Infant -Baptifm.  185 

lights  to  lie  hid  inAmbiguities,  and  double  Meanings  of 
Words  &  Phrafes  -,  but  the  true  Meaning  of  fuch Words 
and  Phrafes,being  once  fettled  by  proper  Diftinctions,the 
Truth  will  be  more  clearly  and  eafily  manifefted,andEr- 
ror  diffipated,  and  Debates  ended.  The  mainDiftinctioa 
to  be  here  firft  fettled  is  that  of  God's  Covenant  with  the 
Mediator,  and  his  Covenant  withMan  fallenjin  and  thro' 
the  Mediator. 

Of  God's  Covenant  with  the  Mediator. 

I.  I  jfhall  fpeak  a  few  Things,  firft  of  all,  of  God'^s 
Covenant  with  the  Mediator^  (called  by  Divines,  the 
Covenant  of  Redemptions  ox  the  Covenant  of  Siiretifiip)  and 
Jhew,  that  this  is  a  diftind  Covenant,  and  eflentially  dif- 
ferent from  the  Covenant  of  Gr^^^,made  with  Man  in  and 
thro'  the  Mediator  ;  tho'  neither  of  thefe  Term.s  are  to 
be  found  exprelly  in  Scripture,yet  the  Thing  fignified  by 
them,are  evidently  contained  therein.  That  'theMethod 
of  Man's  Redemption  was  concerted  between  God  the 
Father,and  the  Son  Jefus  Chrift,  oajrMediator,before  the 
World  began,  is  apparent  from  fundry  PafTages  of  facred 
Writ,  which  fpeak  of  fasderal  Tranfad:ions,  or  Terms  of 
Agreement  entred  into,  between  God  the  Fatherjand  the 
MeiTias,  the  defigned  Mediator,  before  his  coming  into 
the  World, for  the  Agcomplifnment  of  our  Redemption. 
I  (hall  only  refer  the  Reader  for  Brevity's  Sake,  among 
others,  to  the  followingTexts  of  Scripture.  /'y2z/.2.6,7,S. 
and  Pfal.  4.0.  6,7,8.  compar'd  with  Heb.  10.  5,6,7,10. 
Ifai.  4.9.  I, — 6.  Chap.  ^^.  10,  11,12.  Zech.  6.  12,  i^. 
Chap.  13.  7.  Joh.  6.  38,39.  Tit.  i.  2.  2  Tim.  i.  9.  And 
Chrifl's  Interceilbry- Prayer,  in  Joh.  17.  plainly  n  feis  to, 
and  is  grounded  upon  the  federal  Tranfadions  between 
the  Father  and  him  bcjfore  the  World  was.  And  iUq 
Dodrine  of  Redemption, as  taught  intheNew-Teftamenr, 
the  Suretifhip  and  Satisfadion  of  Chriif,  cannot  be  well 
explained,  or  underflood,  without  fuppofing  a  previous 
Agreement  between  God  the  Facher,and  the  Redeemer  j 

as 


I S6  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  IV. 

as  might  be  fhewn  more  at  large,  but  that  it  is  befide  my, 
prelenc  Purpofe.  Thst  which  I  am  now  to  fhew,is5that 
this  Covenant  of  Redemption  between  thofe  divine  Per- 
fons,  is  entirely  diftincl  from  cheCovenant  of  Grace  God- 
made  with  us  in  ChriH,  tho'  rhe  latter  is  founded  on  the 
former  :  And  the  Materials  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace, 
are  provided  and  comprehended  in  the  Covenant  of  Re- 
demption i  yet  they  are  form.ally  diftind:  Covenants, 
To  make  this  more  clear,  we  may  /r/?,confider,  wherein 
thefe  two  Covenanrs  agree  v/ich  each  other. 

I.  They  agree  in  this,  that  they  are  both  of  Grace. 
The  Covenant  of  Redemption  tranfadied  before  the  World 
began,  was  purely  of  Grace.  This  was  the  lirftMo  ive  to 
the  whole  Work  of  Man's  Redemption  ;  'twas  the  free 
good  Pleafure  of  God's  Will  •,  that  was  at  the  Bottom  of 
all  his  Thoughts  and  Counfcls  about  the  Salvation  of  fal- 
len Man.  2  'Tim.  1.9.  Hs  hath  faved  us  —  according  to 
bis  own  Purpofe  and  Grace,  that  zv as  given  us  in  Cbrijl  Je- 
fus^  before  the  JVcrii  te^:an.  And  it  was  owing  to  the 
Grace  and  Love  of  the  Son  of  God,  that  he  who  was  o- 
riginally  free,  fubmitued  to  becomx  his  Father's  Servant 
in  this  Undertaking.  (2  Cor.  8,  9  J  And  the  Covenant 
made  in  Chrilt  with  Believers  is  i'o  purely  of  Grace,  that 
it  has  ufually  this  Appellation  given  it,  The  Covenant  of 
Grace.  Hence  feme  who  allow  them  to  be  diilindt  Co- 
venants, do  yet  term  each  o'f  them  the  Covenant  of  Grace. 
That  between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  they  call  iht  eter- 
nal Covenant  of  Grace  •  That  between  God  &  Believers 
thro'  Ch riff, the  temporal  Covenant  of  Grace  :  *  But  the 
Nam€  or  Term  is  not  to  be  Ifood  upon,  if  the  Thing  be 
acknowledged. 

2.  They  both  agree  in  this,  that  they  relate  to  the  Re- 
demption and  Salvation  of  the  chofen  People  of  God. 
This  is  the  principal  Matter  &  Defign  of  bothCovenants. 
Go.i  the  Father  and  the  Son  enter  into  Articles  about  it 
in  the  Covenant  of  Redemption  :  God  and  Believers  come 
under  mutual  F^ngag-ments  for  obtaining*  it,  in  the  Cove- 
nant 
*  Vid.  Van  Maflrld.  Tbiolog.  Ucoretko-Traet,  J.ib.  V.  Cap.  I. 


Chap.  IV«  g/  Infant-Baptifm.  iSy 

.nant  of  Grace  :  Yet  with  this  Difference  ;  the  Covenant 
of  Redemption,  refers  chiefly  to  the  Impetratinn  or  Fur- 
chafe  of  Redemption  -,  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  fuppofes 
the  Purchafe  of  Redemption,  and  refers  only  to  the  Ap- 
plication of  it. 

3.  They  agree  alfo  in  this,  that  the  Salvation  of  the 
fpiritLialSeed  of  Chrifl  is  promifed  in  bothCovenants.  It 
is  promifed  to  theBeliever,in  the  Covenant  of  Grace,iipon 
hisFaich  inChriil.  The  Right eoufnefs  of  Faith  (theApofbie 
tells  us)  i.e.  the  Covenant  of  Grace.CQnferringRighteouf- 
nefs  and  Life  on  Sinners,  upon  their  Faith  in  Chrifb,  runs 
in  this  Tenor,  Rom.  10.  9.  If  thcujhalt  confefs  -with  thy 
Mcuth  the  Lord  Jtfus^  and  fo alt  believe  in  thine  Heart  — 
thcujhalt  he  faved.  It.  is  promifed  to  Chrift  in  Behalf  of 
his  fpirituai  Seed  in  the  Covenant  of  Redemption,  upon 
his  making  an  Expiatory  Oblation  for  Sin, //^^/. 53.10,1 1, 
For  Chrill  is  conftituted  in  the  Covenant  of  Redemption, 
the  Mediator,  Surety,  or  Guardian,  of  the  Covenant  of 
Grace  ;  and  the  publickTruliee,  or  Repofitory  of  all  the 
pnrnifed  Mercies  &  BlefTings  of  it.  Thefe  Agreements 
between  the  two  Covenants  have  caufed  feme  to  overlook 
the  real  Difierence  betv/een  them,  and  to  make  them  one 
and  the  fame  ;  as  our  Author  doth.  But  that  there  is  a 
manifeil  Difference  between  them,  will  appear  in  thefe 
Particulars. 

I.  The  Parties  are  different.  In  the  Covenant  of  Re- 
demption, God  the  Father,  and  the  Son,  are  the  Parties 
Covenanting  :  The  Father  propounds  his  Will  &  Coun- 
fel  to  the  Son, concerning  what  was  to  be  done  fortheRe- 
demption  of  fallen  Man  -,  the  Son  readily  accepts  his  Fa- 
thers Decree  and  Propofal,  and  voluntarily  confcnts  to 
his  Part  of  the  Undertaking,  faying,  LoJ  come  to  do  thy 
JVtlly  0  God.  Heb.  10.7.  WhichPropofal,&Confent,car- 
ries  in  it  theMatter  &  Form  of  a  Covenant  But  novv-,in 
the  Covenant  of  Grace,  God  and  Man,  are  the  confede- 
rating Parties  •,  as  appears  from  the  conflantTenor  of  the 
Scriptures,  which  often  fpeak  of  the  Covenant  tranfacttd 
between  God  &  Man  j  but  never  fpcak  in  expuels  Terms 

of 


i88  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  W% 

of  theCovenant  made  with  JefusChrift  (unlefs  under  the';^ 
Typeof  D^i;i^,  Pral.89.3J  But  with  Men  often.  Thus^ 
Gcd  made  a  Covenant  wkhNoah  and  his  Sons,  Gen.^.g, 
"With  Abraham^  Gen.  17..  2.  I  will  make  my  Covenant  be- 
tween me  and  thee.  With  David.,  2  Sam,  23.  5,  He  hath 
wade  with  me  an  everlafting  Covenant,  And  under  the 
Gofpel,  with  the  New-Tellament  Ifrael^  Heb.  8.  I  will 
make  a  new  Covenant  with  the  Houfe  of  Ifrael  i^c,  i.e. with 
Gofpel- Behc vers.  We  fee  then  the  Confederates  are  dif- 
ferent. But  however  (may  fome  fay)  may  not  the  Cove- 
nant be  the  fame  that  is  made  with  Chriil  and  Behevers ; 
with  Him  as  the  Head,  and  with  them  as  the  Members 
of  his  Body  ?     I  Anfwer  ;  No  :     For, 

2.  TheConditions  of  thefe  twoCovenants  are  different. 
The  Condition  undertaken  by  Chrift  was,  that  he  fliould 
become  Man,  take  an  human  Body,  that  he  might  con- 
verfe  famiharly  with  Men,ancl  open  to  them  theCounfels 
of  God  referring  to  their  Salvation,  and  therein  become 
obedient  unto  Death,  offering  his  human  Body  and  Soul 
a  Sacrifice  to  makeAtonement  forMan's  Sin.  Ifai.  53. 10, 
Margin.  When  his  Soul  fo all  make  an  Offering  for  Sin.,  &c. 
Hcb.  10.  5, — 10  So  that  Obedience  unto  Death  &  Sa- 
tisiadion  for  Sin  thereby, was  the  m.ainCondition  required 
of  theSon  of  God  in  theCovenant  of  Redemption  ;  where- 
as in  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  the  Condition  requir'd  of 
fallen  Man,  is  Faith  in  the  Mediator,  joined  withRepen- 
tance,  and  produdive  of  unfeignedObedience  to  the  holy 
Precepts  and  Rules  of  the  Covenant.  In  the  Covenant 
ofRedemption,theCondition  runs  thus,  '■^  Make  thy  Sou  I  an 
Offering  for  Sin,  and  thou  fhalt  fee  thy  Seed.  But  in  the 
Covenant  of  Grace,  the  Condition  runs  thus.  Believe  in 
the  Lord  Jefus  Chriff^and  thou  /halt  be  faved.  ■  Thefe  Con- 
ditions are  not  only  different,but  incompatible  tvitli  each 
other,in  the  fame  Subject.  The  making  an  expiatory 
Sacrifice  for  Sin,  the  Condition  in  the  Covenant  ol  Re- 
demption, excludes  all  Ncceffity  &  Ufe  of  Faith  towards 
a  Mediator  in  the  lame  Perfon  :  and  Faith  in  an  atoning 
Mediator,  theCoiuiiiion  «f  the  Covenant  oi'  Grace,would 

be 


"hap.  IV.  of  Infant- Baptifm.  ig^ 

beufelefsto  a  Man  that  could  makeExpiatlon  for  his  own 
Sins.  Yea,it  is  impoffible  for  thefeCondirions  to  be  equal- 
ly perform'd  by  Chrift  andBelievers.  The  Condition  of 
theCovenant  of  Redemption  is  impoffible  to  all  Men,  for 
ManjOnce  a  Sinner, is  liable  himfelf  to  be  made  aSacrifice, 
but  cannot  pcffibly  make  an  atonmg  Sacrifice  for  Sin. 
And  the  Conditions  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace  are  as  im- 
poffible to  Chrift,  which  are  Faith  &  Repentance  j  Faith 
in  a  Mediator,requir'd  of  Sinners,is  impoffible  to  theMe- 
diator  himfelf.  And  how  could  he  repent  who  had  no  Sin 
of  his  own,to  repent  of  ?  It  being  neceflary  to  qualify  him 
to  be  an  atoning  Sacrifice  tor  the  Sins  of  others,  that  he 
Ihould  be  abfolutely  finlefs  hmifelf.  And  therefore  the 
manifeft  Difagreement  of  thefe  two  Conditions,is  a  clear 
Evidence,  that  they  can't  belong  to  the  fame  Covenant, 
but  do  plainly  conftitute  two  diltind  Covenants. 

3.  They  differ  alfo  in  the  Promifes  and  Privileges  of 
each  Covenant.  'Tho'  thePrcmifes  made  toChrifl:  m  the 
Covenant  of  Redemption,virtually  comprize  all  thePro- 
n^ifes  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  and  are  the  fundamental 
Security  of  all  the  Bleffiings  promifed  to  Believers,yet  the 
Promifes  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  were  not  formally 
made  to  Chrift,  as  a  confederateParty  in  the  Covenant  of 
Redemption,  neither  could  they  be.  The  main  Promifes 
ot  the  Covenant  of  Grace5are  of  Pardon  of  Sin,  the  Gift 
of  the  Spirit  for  Sandification  and  eternal  Salvation  ;  all 
which  fuppofe  thePerfons  to  whom  ihey  are  made  to  be 
Sinners,  guilty,  corrupt,  and  liable  to  Damnation.  For 
whichReafon,no  fuchPromifes,  furely,can  agree  toChrifb, 
be  needs  them  not  who  was  perfedly  pure  and  fporlefs; 
had  he  needed  Pardon  of  Sin  and  Regeneration,  he  could 
not  have  been  ourMediator.  On  thecontrary,thePromifes 
n:ade  to  Chrift,  as  a  confederate  Party  in  the  Covenant  of 
Redemption,were  peculiar  to  him,  and  could  agree  to 
none  elfe  ;  fuch  as  the  Promife  of  a  Seed  to  ferve  him. 
liai.  53.  10.  He  JJjallfee  his  Seed,  &c.  Pfal.  22.  30.  Of 
ilriing  at  hisFathcr's  right  Hand, and  a  compleat  Viclory 
over  his  Enemies.  Pfai.  no.  i,    The  Lord  /aid  unto  my 

Lord^ 


190         A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  IV. 

Lor d^  fit  thdu  at  my  right  Hand^until  I  make  thine  Enemies i 
thy  Footftool.     The  Promife  of  a  univerfal  Dominion,  to:' 
whofe  fupream  Power  &  Authority  all  Creatures  in  Hea^ 
'ven  and  Earth^and  under  theEarlh^  Angels  Men  &  Devils- 
ihouldZ'(?w  the  Knee.  Phil.  2.  9,  10.  In  ihort,  he  had  the 
Promii'e  of  having  the  Honour  &  Glory  of  the  great  Sa- 
viour &Head  of  the  Churchy  aGlory  which  fuits  only  to  ' 
the  Mediator,  as  his  peculiar  Prerogative,  which  noCrea- 
ture  in  Heaven  or  Earth  can  have  any  Share  in.     And 
tlK>'  thefe  glorious  Promifes  made  to  Chrift  redound  to 
the  Benefit  of  all  Believers,  yet  there  are  no  fuchPromifes 
made  to  them  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace :  but  finding 
them  in  Scripture  made  to  Chriit,  upon  his  Undertaking 
and  Peribrmance  of  the  Work  of  our  Redemption,  wef 
piuft  conclude,that  thefe  are  diftindt  Covenants  :  for  we 
have  already  feen  that  both  the  Conditions  and  Promifes  , 
of  theCovenant  of  Grace  are  fuch,as  Chrift  is  uncapablel 
of;  and  that  the  Conditions  &  Promifes  of  theCovenanC 
of  Redemption  are  fuch,  as  Believers  are  uncapable  of. 
Let  me  add, 

4.  Chrift  is  the  Mediator  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace,: 
but  in  theCovenant  ot  Redemption,  a  Party  confederate. 
The  Covenant  of  Grace  is  made  with  us  through  a  Me- 
diator or  Surety  :  HericeChriil  is  fo  often  called  the  Me- 
diatcr  of  the  Nc-~jj  Tejl anient,  Heb.  12.  24.  The  'TesJator,. 
whofe  Death  confirmed  his  New  'Tejtament, 10  theHeirs  ofi 
Promife,  Pleb.  9. 1 5, 1 6.  And  a  Surety  0}  a  betterTeftament^ 
which  is  no  otherjbut  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  Heb.  7. 22, 
But  in  the  Covenant  between  the  Father  &  the  Sonjtherc 
was  no  Mediator  or  Surety,  there  needed  none,  for  the- 
Father  and  the  Son  were  perfe6tly  united  in  Mind  andi 
Counfel.  John  10.  15,  18.  As  theFather  knozueth  meyevew 
fo  know  I  the  Father  :  And  I  lay  down  my  Life  for  theSheep, 
— This  Commandment  have  I  received  of  my  Father,  f.  30.' 
I  and  my  Father  are  one.  And  they  were  immutably  true 
and  faithful,  and  trufted  each  other  on  their  Word.  And 
in  this  Covenant  of  Redemption, he  was  conftituted  Me- 
diator of  the  Covcnaiii;  gf  Grace.     But  if  the  Covenant 

of 


.^lAP.  IV.  of  Infant- Baptifm.  191. 

f  Grace  was  made  with  him,he  would  be  bothMediator, 
nd  aParty,in  the  fame  Covenant !.  Both  theTeftatorjand 
he  Legatee,  which  is  unreafonable  &  abfurd.     And 

^.  In  the  Covenant  of  Redemption  the  Reward  pro- 
iiied  to  Chrift,  upon  his  Performance  of  the  Work 
iiign'd  him.,  was  a  Reward  of  Debt,  and  not  of  Grace. 
Vnd  he  properly  and  righteouily  merited  all  that  was  pro- 
nifed  by  theFather  j  according  to  diatAcccount  of  Merit, 
Zcm,  4.  4.  that  it  confifts  in  fuch  Works  of  perfect  Obe- 
lience  as  render  the  Reward  of  Debt^  and  not  of  Grace  ; 
ind  fuch  were  theWorks  of  Chrift's  Obedience  to  the  Fa- 
her,  on  the  Account  whereof  he  might  juftly  claim  the 
^romiied  Reward  as  his  Due,  as  we  find  him  in  Joh.iy, 
Hitting  in  his  Plea  in  theNature  of  a  Claim,  f.  4,5,  24. 
lax.  in  die  nev/Covenantall  is  of  Grace,  both  theCondition 
.nd  the  promifedReward.  Rom.  4.  16.  ItiscfFaith^ihat 
t  may  he  by  Grace.  Eph.  2.  8.  By  Grace  are  ye  faved  thro* ^ 
'^^aith^  and  that  not  of  your f elves  ^  it  is  the  Gift  of  God, 
Once  more, 

6.  They  differ  in  their  immediate  Ends.  The  Cove* 
iant  of  Redemption  immediately  relates  to  thePurchafe 
f  Redemption  by  the  Obedience  &  Sacrifice  of  the  Son 
f  God, incarnate  :  The  whole*  Method  or  Plan  of  this 
iVork  was  agreed  on  in  theCounfel  of  Peace  between  the 
I2kih^x  &  the  Son  •,  but  the  Covenant  of  Grace  is  founded 
m  the  Suppofition  of  this  Purchafe  already  made,  and 
'efers  immediately  &  only  to  theApplication  of  Redemp- 
:ipn,and  is  publifhed  &  recorded  in  the  faered  Scripture^ 
15  the  appointed  Method  and  Rule  of  the  Spirit'sW^ork, 
n  bringingHome  the  Redemption  purchafed  by  the  Son 
:Q-the  Souls  of  Men.  From  ail  thefe  Differences  it  fol- 
ows,as  ,an  undeniable  Conclufion,  that  thefe  muil  be  two 
lirtind  Covenants.  * 

Thefe 

'•  Mod:  of  thefe  and  other  Points  of  Difference  between  the  two  Co- 
venants, are  noted  and  enlarged  on  by  Mr.C/S(?/-/2i?ri,in  hisDifcourf© 
on  God's  being  the  Author  of  Bjicunciliaiion  :  By  Mr.  Fla^tK  in  his 
fountain  of  Life  opined.     And  by  divers  other  Divines,   who   have 

^written  on  this  'SubjeS:,  whereby  they  have   clearly  demorikated 

-  th^fe  two  Coveuan;^  to  be  iudrel^  diiimivt. 


192  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  IV. 

Thefe  Confiderations  plainly  fhew  Dr.  GiU's  Miftake, 
in  making  the  Covenant  with  Chrift,and  that  made  with 
Believers,to  be  one  &  the  fame,and  pretending,that  "  the 
"  Covenant  of  Grace  was  made  with  Chrilt  and  his  Peo- 
''  pie, as  confider'd  in  him  from  Everlafting.P.47."  For 
tho'  the  Covenant  made  with  Chrift  betore  the  World 
began  (called  the  eternal  Covenant)  had  Rerpe6l  to  the 
chofen  People  in  Time,  and  was  defigned  and  contrived 
for  their  Good  ♦,  yet  confidering  the  Nature  andTenor  of 
it,  as  it  has  been  diftindlly  (tho'  very  briefly)  explained, 
in  Refpe6l  to  its  Conditions  &  Promifes,could  not  poffi- 
bly  be  made  with  them,  or  with  any  of  the  Children  of 
Men,  as  Parties  confederate,  it  being  aCovenant  peculiar 
toChrift  in  his  mediatorialCapacity  :  It  may  as  truly  and 
properly  be  faid,  that  they  were  joint  Undertakers  with 
him  in  the  Work  of  Man's  Redemption, as  that  they  were 
joint  Federates  with  him,  in  the  Covenant  between  the 
Father  and  Him,  relatino;  to  that  Undertaking;. 

It  is  to  be  confers'd,that  the  more  ancientDivincs  feem^ 
to  have  had  lefs  diifind  Notions  of  the  Covenant  of  Re 
demption  :  for  obferving,  there  were  Promifes  made  to 
Chrift  m  Scripture,  thefe  they  explained  and  apply'd,  in- 
diftindly  to  theCovenant  ol  Grace  in  general,  and  feem'd 
to  hold  that  theCovenant  of  Grace  was  made  withChrifV, 
as  the  Head, and  with  Believers,as  his  Members,or  fpiri-  • 
tual  Seed  :  But  in  a  far  dilFerent  Senfe  ^rom  t\\t  Antino-  ■ 
mians,  or  from  that  of  Dr.  Gill ;   not  as  exclufive  of  a 
Covenant  of  Grace  made  particularly  withBelievers ;  nor; 
of  the  Conditions  of  that  Covenant,  required  in  order  to 
their  having  an  Intereft  in   the    Privileges   of  it.     The  • 
Aflembly  of  Divines,  both  in  their  Confeffion  of  Faith^and 
iarger  Catechifm^  expreily  mentionFaith,as  the  Condition 
required  of  us,  in  order  to  our  Intereft  in  Chrift,  and  his 
faving  Benefits  ,  and  the  later  Divines  upon  a  more  nar- 
rt)w,and  accurate  Search,  into  theNature  of  theCovenant, 
according  to  the  Light  of  Scripture-Revelation, have  ob- 
fcrved  a  diftind  Covenant  between  the  divine  Perfons, 
God  the  Father,  and  the  Redeemerj  peculiar  to  them, 

antecedeot 


Chap.  IV.  of  Infant-Baptlfm.  19^ 

antecedent  to  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  made  with  fallen 
Man  in  Chrift,  and  the  very  Foundation  of  it. 

Thofe  who  take  thefe  Covenants  to  be  one  and  the 
fime,  feem  to  be  led  into  that  Opinion  chiefly  by  one 
Text  of  Scripture,  and  that  a  very  myftical  one.  It  is 
that,  in  Gal.  3.  16.  Nov:  to  /ibraham  and  his  Seed  were 
the  Promifes  made  :  he  faith  not,  And  to  Seeds  ^as  of  many  ; 
but  as  of  one^  And  to  thy  Seed  \  which  is  Chrift,  But  to 
fliew,  what  is  moil  clear  and  certain  from  fo  doubtful  a 
Text,  let  me  briefly  note,  i.  There  are  divers  Promifes 
recorded,  which  God  made  to  Abraham  in  Reference  to 
his  Seed.  Particularly,  G^;^  22.18.  In  thy  Seed Jloall  all 
the  Nations  of  the  Earth  be  bleffed.  Chap.  17.  7.  I  will 
eftablifn  my  Covenant  between  me  &  thee^  and  thy  Seed  after 
thee — to  be  a  God  to  thee^and  thy  Seed  after  thee.  Chap. 
I J .  1 5.  All  theLand  which  thcufeeftjo  thee  will  I give^  and 
to  thy  Seed.  Now  we  need  not  be  curious  to  enquire,whicli 
of  thefe  Promifes  the  Apoftle  refers  to,  feeing  he  fpeaks 
o^  Promifes  in  the  Plural,  including  the  feveral  Promifes 
God  made  to  Abraham  relating  to  his  Seed.  2.  We  are 
further  to  note.  That  by  the  Seed  of  Abraham  mentioned 
in  God*s  Promifes  to  him,  befides  his  natural  Seed,  the 
Jews,  there  is  a  twofold  Seed  efpecially  intended.:  Which 
two,  in  other  Refpe6is,  are  one.  1  here  is  that  eminent 
Seed,  the  MefTiaSjwho  was  promifed  as  the  great  BiefTing 
of  the  World  ;  in  whom  all  Nations  of  the  Ecrtb  arc  to  be 
hleffed  -,  and  v^ho  is,  by  way  of  Eminence,  ftiled  the  Seed 
of  Abraham^  Heb.2  16.  The  other,  are  all  Chriftiansor 
Believers  inChri(l,the  adopted  Seed  of  Abraham,  There- 
fore thefe  Promifes  cannot  be  faid,according  to  theLetter 
of  the  Hiftory,  to  be  made  to  Chrift  as  the  Seed  of  Abra- 
ham \  fince  as  fuch,  he  was  the  great  Blefling  promifed, 
and  by  whom  the  Promife  of  Blelfing  was  to  be  fulfilled 
to  the  adopted  Seed.  3  Obferve,  That  in  whatever 
Senfe  the  Promifes  are  faid  to  be  made  to  the  eminent 
StQd  of  Abraham^  i.  e.  to  Chrift,  they  were  not  made  to 
the  Perfon  of  Chrift  diftin(ftively,  fo  as  to  exclude  others 
©f  the  Faithful  from  having  a  Share  in  them  j  nor  indeed 

O  arc 


194  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.  IV. 

are  any  other  Prcmifes  here  referred  to,  but  thofe  of  the 
Covenant  of  Grace,  common  to  all  Believers  ;  foryf^r^- 
ham  is  particularly  and  exprelly  joined  with  his  Seed,  to 
whom  the  Promiies  were  made,  and  primarily  to  Abra- 
ham,    Fcr  to  Abraham  &  his  Seed  were  thePromifes  made. 
But  to  fay,  that  the  Promifes  were  made  primarily  io  A- 
hraham,,  and  then  to  Chrifl:  perfonally  coniidered,  founds 
harfh.  Wherefore  (to  declare  what  I  apprehend  to  be  the 
Mcaniiig  ot  this  Text)  'tis  to  be  obferv'd,that  theApoftle, 
in  Oppofition  to  the  Boaft  of  the  Jews,that  they  were  the 
Seed  ot  Abraham^  andHeirs  of  thePromifes  made  to  him, 
is  here  fhewing,  thatGod  intended  another  Seed  of  Abra- 
ham (befides  the  carnal  unbelieving  Jews,)  upon  the  Ex- 
hibition of  Chrift  in  the  Flefh,  who  (hould  beHeirs  of  his 
Covenant  •,  even  as  many  both  Jews  &  Gentiles  as  came 
into  Union  withChrifl:,the  great  &  eminent  Seed  o^Abra- 
to^jbyFaith ,  i.e.  theChriftianChurch,or  the  whokChurch 
of  Believers  under  the  Difpenfation  of  Chrift  theirHead. 
So  he  had  declared  ^',  7.   'iThey  which  are  of  Faith^   the 
fame  are  the  Children  of  Abraham.     And  he  proves   this 
from  theType  o{  Alrahamh  immediate  naturalSeed,thus: 
as  Abraham  according  to  the  Letter  of  the  Hiftory  had  a 
diverfe  Seed,  Iflrmad  and  Ifaac ;  but  Ifimael  the  Son  of  the 
Bond-Woman  was  caft  out,  and  Ifaac  only  counted  for 
the  Seed  *,  on  whom  the  Promifes  were  fettled,  in  whofe 
Lm^  the  Church  was  to  be  continued.  Gen.  21.  12.' — In 
Ifaac  f}jall  thy  Seed  be  caIIed,Chap.  17.21.  MyCovenant  will. 
I cftablifh  with  Ifaac:  So  at  theComing  of  Chrift  &  under 
his  Difpenfation  (tho*  Abraham  may  be  faid  to  have  a  di- 
verfe.'^ ecd,  viz. the  carnal unbclievi7tgjews^\\\s  naturalSeed, 
vho  adher'd  to  the  legal  Covenant,  typified  by  the  Son 
of  the  Bond-Woman,  and  all  Bcliez-crs,  even  among  the 
Gentiles,  his  r.dopted  Seed,  typified  by  Ifaac  the  Child  of\ 
thePrcmiJe^  Gal. 4.  22,  23.  28.  Ytt)  in  the  myfricalSenfe, 
there  is  iliU  but  one  Stt6^  who  were  defign'd  theHeirs  of, 
thePromifes  made  loAbraham  •,  that  is,all  that  areChriil's,: 
all  believing  Jews  and  Gentiles  united  in  ore  Body,  deno- 
minated from  theirHead C/n/?  myflical,as  in  i  Ccr.  12.13 

according 


Chap.  IV.  ^/ Infant- Bapiifm.  195 

according  to  the  Explication  given  by  the  Apoftle  in  rliis 
fameChapter.  i!.  28,29.  For  there  is  neither]t'N nor  Gxocl'iy 
&c.  For  ye  are  all  One  in  Chrijljefus^  and  if  ye  be  Chrift^Sy 
then  are  ye  Abraham's  Seed  (the  one  Seed  to  whom  the 
Promifes  were  made,  as  it  follows)  and  Heirs  according  to 
the  Promife,  The  carnal  Jews  being  broken  off  through 
Unbelief  from  the  Root  of  Abraharn\  Covenant,  the  be- 
lieving Gentiles  fucceed  in  their  Room,  as  Heirs  of  the 
Promifes :  that  as  the  natural  Seed  v/ere  literally  cne  in 
Ifaac^  IJhmael  being  call  out  tz  not  allow'd  to  inherit  with 
him  •,  fo  the  fpiritual  Seed  are  myfticaliy  one  in  Chrifh, 
and  to  them  only  the  Promife  belongs  under  the  Gofpel, 
which  was  made  to  Abraham  arid  his  Seed. 

According  to  this  Explication,  I  fee  nothing  that  fa- 
vours the  Notion  of  the  fame  Covenant  being  made  with 
Chrift  and  Believers  •,  or  however  the  Text  be  explain'd, 
all  that  can  be  gather'd  from  it,is,that  the  Promifes  were 
made  to  Chrift  confider'd  in  his  publick  Capacity,  as  the 
fecond/fi^;;/,  and  Head  of  his  redeem'd  People,  to  be  ia 
Time  made  good  to  all  hisMembers,as  the  greatBleiTing 
he  was  to  difpenfeto  them  •,  which  I  conceive  to  be  a  very 
different  Thing  from  faying,  that  the  Covenant  of  Grace 
was  made  with  him  as  a  Party  confederate  in  that  Cove- 
nant, which  I  have  lliewed  to  be  impolfible  :  yet  nothing 
hinders  but  that  the  Promifes  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace 
might  be  miade  to  him  as  a  publick  Truftee,in  Behalf  of 
his  fpiritual  Seed, that  they  might  claim  all  by  and  under 
him,  by  Virtue  of  their  Union  &  Relation  to  him,  who 
muft  in  all  Things  have  the  Prcheminence.  And  it  is 
undoubtedly  a  great  Truth,  and  agreable  to  what  has 
been  faid  of  the  Tranfadions  between  theFather&  Him 
in  the  Covenant  of  Redemption,  that  all  the  Promifes  of 
the  new  Covenant,  comprizing  the  ^X^^^mgo^  Abraham y 
Juftincation,  theGift  of  the  Spirit  for  Sanciification,  and 
eternal  Life, were  originally  made  to  Chrift  in  thofe  an- 
cient Tranfaftions,  not  as  a  Party  concern'd  otherwife 
than  as  a  Truftee,  or  Surety  of  the  Covenant  of  Gr^ce, 
%ho  by  Virtue  of  the  Promife  of  the  Father,  had  full 
O  2  Right 


•196         A  'Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap. IV, 

Right  and  Power  to  difpenfe  them  to  his  redeemed  Peo- 
ple onNew-Covenant-Terms.  The  Father  promifed  and 
engag'd  to  Chrift  on  the  Behalf  of  his  cholen  Seed,  in 
Coniideration  of  his  Obedience,  Death  and  Sacrifice,  to 
give  his  Spirit  to  them,  and  all  neceiraryGrace,to  fit  them 
for  Heaven,  and  eternal  Life  in  the  End  ;  which  being 
the  CoTifummation  of  the  Bleffing  of  Jl^rabam.and  of  all 
the  Promifes  of  the  new  Covenant,  is  faid  to  ht  promifed 
by  God  before  the fFor Id  began.  Tit.  i,  2.  It  was  promifed 
in  Jefus  Chriil:,  as  the  Apoftle  ellewhere  fpeaks  of  the 
Grace  given  us  inCbrifi  Jefus  before  theWorld  began.  2  Tim. 
1 .  9.  Given  not  to  Jefus  Chriil:,  but  given  to  us  in  Chrift 
Jefus  ;  who  as  Mediator  was  conftituied  the  Repofitory 
of  all  divine  Gifts,  Mercies, and  Bleirings,to  be  difpens'd 
to  fmful  Men.  For  all  the  Promifes  of  God  are  in  Cbriji 
Tea^and  in  htm  Amen.  2Cor,  i.  20.  All  were  fecured  in  his 
Hands,on  the  Behalf  of  his  People.  And  fo  we  fee5thac 
whatever  Promifes  were  made  to  Chriil,  this  is  noProof 
that  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  as  contradiflinguifh'd  from 
theCovenant  of  Redemption,was  made  with  him.  And  leC 
this  fufiice  for  the  firilHead.  I  proceed  now  to  fpeak — 

Of  God's  Covena?it  with  Man. 

2.  Let  us  in  the  next  Place  confider  theCovenant 
God  has  made  with  Manjn  and  through  the  Mediator. 
And  in  Order  hereunto,  I  would  firit  fliew  what  aCove- 
venant  between  God  and  Man  imports  in  general. 

God's  Covenant  with  Man  is  the  revealed  Method  of 
his  Government  over  him,  in  a  State  of  Trial,  by  Laws, 
Promifes  and  Threatnings, whereby  he  hath  fliewed  what 
Duty  he  requires  of  him  -,  and  what  Favours  and  Bene- 
fits he  may  expedt  from  hisCreator  upon  his  Compliance 
wiih  his  Will,  that  he  might  in  a  Way  moil  fuitable  to 
his  rational  Nature,  engage  his  Dependance  on  him, and 
Obedience  to  him,  in  Order  to  his  own  Glory,  and  the 
Happinefsof  Man.  All  this  is  implied  in  every  Cove- 
nant with  Man,  as  to  the  Subftance  of  it  on  God'sPai"t  ; 
and  Mau'ii  Confent  and  A<.n'eement  hereunto  brincrs  hirn 

into 


Chap.  IV.  cf  Infant-Baptirm.  19-7 

into  Covenant  witbGcd.  There  is  (it  is  granted}  a  great 
Deal  of  Difference  betvveenGod's  covenanting  witiiMan, 
and  Man's  covenanting  with  his  Fellow- Creature  •,  con- 
trading  Parties  among  Men  are  fuppos'd  tree  from  Ob- 
ligations to  each  other,  till  they  bind  themfelves  by  Co- 
venant. But  Man  is  originally  bound,  as  a  Servant  to 
God, by  the  Law  of  his  Creation,  and  God  might  juftly 
demand  Obedience  from  him,  without  engaging  himfelf 
-by  Promife  to  reward  his  Obedience  -,  therefore  it  is 
wonderful  Grace  and  Condefcenfion  in  God  to  enter  into 
the  Bonds  of  a  Covenant  with  his  Creature,  to  engage 
him  to  that  Service  and  Obedience  which  is  his  original 
Due.  Befides,  Man  is  at  Liberty  to  propound  what 
Terms  he  pleafes  to  his  Feiiow-Creature,  and  it  is  not  a 
valid  Covenant,  till  there  be  a  mutual  Agreement  arid 
Confentof  both  Parties :  ButMan  being  originally  bound 
to  God,  is  not  at  Liberty  to  make  his  ov/n  Terms5orto 
debate  or  except  againft  theTerms  propounded,on  which 
God  vouchfafes  to  enter  into  Covenant  v/ith  him  ;  but  is 
obliged  to  take  the  Covenant  juft  asGod  offers  it.  God's 
Command  and  Promife  conftitutes  the  whole  Ma:ter  of 
the  Covenant  :  the  Command  makes  our  Part  in  it ;  the 
Promife,  his.  And  it  is  the  Duty  of  every  one  to  whom 
theCovenant  is  propounded,fand  not  Matter  of  Liberty) 
to  yield  his  Confent  to  it  \  and  it  is  his  Sin,  his  Difobe- 
dience,  and  Ingratitude,  to  refufe  it.  Thefe  and  other 
Differences  there  are,  of  the  Covenants  between  God  and 
Man,&  betweenMan  &Man,  Neverthelefs,that  which  is 
requifite  to  all  Covenants,  is  the  mutual  Agreement,and 
Engagement  of  theParties  one  to  another  ;  without  which 
there  can  be  no  proper  Covenant.  So  in  God'sCovenanc 
with  Man,  there  are  Promifes  on  God's  Part,  and  Refli- 
pulations  on  Man's  Part,  either  exprefs  or  implicit.  I'he 
Proportion  of  the  Covenant  on  God's  Part,  whether  by 
immediate  Revelation,  or  in  the  Handing  Record  of  holy 
Scripture,  is  a  fufncient  Declaration  of  his  Confent  to  a 
Covenant- Treaty  with  Men.  And  in  order  to  their  In- 
tcreit  in  the  Covenant,  there  muft  be  an  adual  Confent 

O  3  to 


'19S  A  'Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  IV, 

to  God's  Propofal  and  Demand,  in  Subjedls  capable,  be- 
lievingly  and  thankfully  accepting  the  ProiTiire,and  obe- 
diently fubmitting  to  theTerms  requir'd.  I  fay^inSub- 
jeds  capable  -,  for  lince  Man  is  originally  and  naturally 
bound  to  all  the  Duties  required  in  the  Covenant,  if  it 
pleafe  God  to  extend  the  Promife  of  it  to  fuch  as  are  at 
prefent  uncapable  of  aflual  Confent,  as  the  Infants  of  the 
Faithful  they  are  neverthelefs  properly  to  be  reputed 
Federates,  and  to  have  an  Intereil  in  the  Covenant,  by 
Virtue  of  the  believingConfent  of  their  Parents, andGod's 
Promife  to  them.  There  needs  not  the  Confent  of  Chil- 
dren, to  bring  them  underObligations  to  God  ;  they  are 
his  already,and  bound  to  all  the  Duties  of  the  Covenant, 
by  the  Right  of  Creation  and  Redemption  :  And  his 
Promife  of  being  th(^ir  God,  annexed  to  his  Command, 
(which  as  they  grow  up  to  a  Capacity  for  it,  they  arc 
obliged  to  own  and  actually  to  confent  to)  is  fufficient  to 
their  Covenant-Intereft ;  and  they  ought  to  be  efteemed, 
equally  with  their  Parents,  in  Covenant  with  God,  'till 
they  cut  ofFthemfelvcs  by Apoftacy, or  renouncing  their 
Part  in  the  Covenant. 

It  has  pleafed  God,  all  along  from  the  Beginning,  to 
deal  with  Man  in  the  Way  of  a  Covenant  :  which  is  to 
be  confidered  as  the  Rule  and  Method  of  the  moral  Go  - 
vernment,v;hich  he  exercifesovcrhisPeople  in  this  World-, 
-wherein  much  of  the  Wifdom  and  Goodnefs  of  God  is 
manitefted.  He  hath  chofen  fuch  a  Method  of  Govern- 
ment, to  fhew,  that  hisAuthority  is  temper'd  with  Grace 
and  Love,  refembling  that  of  a  kind  and  tender 
Father,  who  confults  the  Good  of  his  Children,  &  chiefly 
deligns  the  Glory  of  Goodnefs  and  Love,rather  than  that 
of  an  abfolute  Monarch,  who  aims  chiefly  at  the  Glory 
of  Power  and  Dominion.  And  this  Conititution  of  Go- 
vernment is  better  accommodated  to  theNature  of  Man, 
who  being  cndow'd  with  Reafon  and  Confcience,  Hope 
and  Fear,  is  capable  of  a  moral  Law  direding  his  Beha- 
viour inObedience  toGod,and  of  being  influenced  thereto 
by  Proniiies  and  Threatnings.     But  chiefly  we  may  ob- 

fcrvc. 


Chap.  IV.  of  Infant- Baptifm.  199 

ferve,  that  in  this  Way  of  Government:,  God  has  laid  a 
Foundation  of  iiis  People's  Dependance  on  him,  the  bet- 
ter to  encourage  &  fecure  their  Obedience  to  him.  Had 
God  only  given  us  a  L  ommand,  without  giving  us  a 
Promife  to  build  our  Hope  upon,  we  Ihould  have  had 
no  Ground  of  Dependance,  but  the  general  Perfections 
of  his  Nature,  which  are  fo  much  above  the  Reach  of  our 
Underftandings,  that  we  could  not  certainly  conclude 
from  thefe  alone,  that  our  moil  difficult  Services  fhould 
meet  with  a  Reward,  to  compenfate  our  Pains.  Indeed 
his  Goodnefs  and  general  Juftice  might  incline  us  to  hope 
for  a  Recompence  ;  but  when  we  confider  him  as  an  ab- 
folute  Sovereign,who  may  do  what  he  will  with  his  own, 
we  could  have  no  certain  Perfuafion,  but  that  when  we 
had  ferved  his  Ends,  he  might  let  us  fink  into  our  origi- 
nal Nothing  ;  Ctho  I  think  it  is  going  too  far,  to  fay, he 
might  make  us  mifcrable  out  of  his  meer  Sovereignty  ; 
which  feems  abfolutely  repugnant  to  his  natural  Good- 
nefs) fo  that  we  Ihould  have  had  but  little  Encourage- 
ment without  a  Promife,  to  depend  on  him,  and  confe- 
quently  to  obey  him  :  and  fo  the  Band  of  Commerce 
between  God  and  his  reafonable  Creatures,  would  have 
been  very  weak  and  eafily  diflbluble.  But  his  Covenant 
with  us  affords  fure  Grounds  to  go  upon  both,  in  ourDe- 
pendance  on  him,  and  Obedience  to  him. 

What  has  been  now  faid  of  God'sGovernmentof  Man 
in  a  federal  Way,  is  applicable  to  every  Covenant  God 
hath  made  with  him,  not  only  to  the  Covenant  made 
v^it^^Adam  before  the  Fall,  (commonly  called  theCovenant 
of  Works)  wherein  his  Duty  was  enjoin'd  by  an  exprefs 
Command,  and  guarded  by  aThreatning  of  Death,  im- 
plying a  Promife  of  Life  in  Cafe  of  Obedience  \  but  alfo 
to  the  Covenant  of  Grace  fince  the  Fall,  in  everyDifpen- 
fation  whereof  it  has  been  God's  great  Defign  to  keep 
up  and  eftablifli  his  governing  Authority  over  Men,  to 
condud  them  to  Happinefs,  in  a  Way  conducive  to  the 
Glory  of  his  Holinefs  and  Juftice,  as  the  Ruler  of  the 
World,  as  well  as  of  his  rich  Grace.     Wherefore  to  talk 

o  4  4. 


200  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  IV. 

of  a  Covenant  oi  Grace,  wherein  all  is  fo  purely  of  Grace 
as  to  exclude  allTerms  of  Duty  requir'd  of  Man,  "  a  Co- 
venant that  cannot  be  kept  by  Man,nor  broken  byMan," 
is  unfcriptural  and  unreafonable,  and  repugnant  to  the 
Method  of  the  divine  Government  over  Men  -,  it  being 
evident,  that  the  grand  Aim  of  tiie  Gofpel-Difpenfation 
(which  will  be  own'd  to  be  a  Difpenfation  of  the  pureft 
GraceJ  is  to  magnify  the  holy  La'u:;  of  God,  and  to  make 
it  honour  able  ^  Ifai, /\.2.  21.  Matlh.^.ij.  Rom  3.31. 
But  it  is  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace  particularly,  that  I 
v/ould  fpeak  a  few  Things,  which  are  neceifary  to  be  un- 
derftood,  for  the  better  clearing  up  our  Argument  thence 
to  Infants  Title  to  Baptifm. 

I.  I  (liall  (hew  what  the  Covenant  of  Grace  is,  in  ge- 
neral, or  what  we  mean  by  it. 

The  Covenant  of  Grace  is  that  Difpenfation  of  the 
Grace  and  Government  of  God  to  fallen  Man  by  a  Re- 
deemer, reveal'd  and  publifh'd  in  the  facred  Scriptures, 
wherein,  upon  the  Account  of  the  Satisfaction  &  Merit 
of  Chrill,  God  freely  offers  &  promifes  to  us  Pardon  of 
Sin,  Grace,  and  eternal  Life,with  allThings  necefTary  and 
conducive  to  our  Happinefs  in  Soul  and  Body,requiring 
of  us  Faith  in  Chrift,  Repentance,  Converfion,  and  new 
Obedience  to  his  Gofpel,as  the  Condition  and  Means  of 
our  Iniereft  in,  and  full  PofTefTion  of  thefe  gracious  Pro- 
mifes. Or  more  briefly  thus.  The  Covenant  of  Grace  is 
God's  wife  and  gracious  Method  of  dealing  with  apollate 
Man,  in  Order  to  his  Recovery  to  his  loft  Holinefs  and 
Happinefs  by  a  Mediator,  wherein  he  promifes  to  be  a 
God  to  us  and  our  Seed,  requiring  the  Dedication  of  our 
felves  to  him  by  Faith  in  his  Son  Jefus  Chriff,  to  be  to 
him  aPeople,and  to  walk  before  him  inNewnefs  of  Life  ; 
offering  &  difpenfing  the  Grace  of  his  holy  Spirit  to  ena- 
ble us  thereunto.  Which  I  find  agreable,  for  Subftance, 
to  the  ConfelTion  of  the  Affembly  of  Divines^  *  in  the  brief 
Defcription  they  give  of  this  Covenant,  in  thefe  Words, 
[[  TheLord  was  pleas'd  to  make  afecondCovenant,com- 

^f  monly 

^   ^*  Cmf^fm  of  Fciilh,  Chap.  VII. 


Ckap.  IV.  ef  Infant-Baptifm.  201 

*'  monly  called  the  Covenant  of  Grace ^  wheiein  he  freely 
*'  offercth  untoSinners  Life  &  Salvation  byJefusChrift  : 
*'  requiring  of  themFaith  in  him, that  they  may  be  faved, 
*'  and  promifing  to  give  unto  all  thofe  that  are  ordained 
"  unto  Life,  his  holy  Spirir,to   make  them  willing  and 
*'  able  to  believe."  It  is  called  theCovenantof  Grace,by 
"Way  of  Eminence.  There  was  indeed  much  of  theGrace 
of  God  in  the  firft  Covenant  made  with  Adam  in  Inno- 
j  cence,  and  wonderful  Condefcenfion  in  the  high  and  lofty 
One^  to  Hoop  down  from  the  Height  of  Majefly  to  treat 
with  his  mean  Creature,   Man,  in  a  Covenant- Way,  to 
enter  into  Articles  with  the  Work  of  his  own  Hands,to 
j  fecure  that  Duty  &  Homage  (and  to  render  it  more  agre- 
i  able  and  grateful  to  Man)  which  as  his  Creator  he  had 
an  originalRight  to.  But  in  the  fecondCovenant,there  are 
I  more  peculiar  and  admirableDifcoveries  of  divineGrace ; 
I  it  is  of  Grace,  not  only  as  Grace  fignifies  a  free  Favour 
orVouchfafement,exclufive  of  all  Regard  to  Merit  in  the 
Creature  \  but  of  Grace,    as  it  fignifies  abfolutely  free 
Bounty  and  Kindnefs,  in  Oppoficion  to  a  contrary  Deme- 
rit in  the  finful  Creature.  The  free  Grace  of  God  is  evi- 
dently manifeiled  in  the  whole  Conftitution  of  thisCove- 
nant.    So  the  Ajjeynbly  of  Divines  declare  in  their  larger 
Catechifm.  ''  The  Grace  of  God  is  manifefled  in  the  fe- 
"  cond  Covenant,  in  that  he  freely  provideth  &  offereth 
"  to  Sinners  a  Mediator,  and  Life  and  Salvation  by  him ; 
*'  andrequiringFaich  as  theCondition  to  intereft  them  in 
*'  him,  promifeth  and  giveth  his  holy  Spirit  to   all  his 
*'  Eledt,  to  work  in  them  that  Faith,  and  all  other  faving 
**  Graces.'*  Agreably  hereunto  v/e  may  obferve,how  pe- 
culiarly and  eminently  the  Grace  of  God  is  difcover'd  in 
this  Covenant,  chiefly  in  thefe  Particulars. 

I .  The  moft  fovereign  free  Grace  appears  in  the  very 
Foundation  of  this  gracious  Conftitution  ;  in  God's  ap- 
pointing his  own  Son  to  be  our  Mediator  and  Sacrifice  of 
Atonement  for  Sin,  which  is  the  Ground  of  that  Ad  of 
Grace  which  he  has  publifii'd  in  the  new  Covenant. 
I  Joh,  4.  10.  Herein  is  Love  \  not  that  we  loved  God^  but 

that 


202         A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  IV. 

that  he  loved  us,  f  with  a  free  Love  of  Benevolence)  and 
fent  his  Son  to  be  the  Propitiation  for  our  Sins.  Rom.  8.  32. 
He  that  fpared  not  his  own  Son,  hut  delivered  him  up  for  us 
all,  how  fn all  he  not  with  him  alfo  freely  give  us  allThings  ? 
The  Gift  of  his  own  Son,fcr  the  Ends  mention'd,  is  fun- 
damental to  all  theBleffings  of  theCovenant.  And  thisGift 
of  his  Son  being  an  A61  of  the  pureft  free  Grace,  not 
only  without  Regard  to  any  Merit  in  us,  but  previous  to 
the  Confideration  of  the  Merit  of  Chrift  too,all  theGifts 
of  divine  Mercy,founded  thereon  and  flowing  therefrom, 
mull  have  their  Rife  from  the  fame  free  Grace. 
Therefore, 

2.  It  is  manifefled  in  the  Conditions  of  Pardon  and 
Life,  propounded  to  us  and  requir'd  of  us  in  this  Cove- 
nant. Which  are,  not  any  Satisfa^flion  for  our  part:  Of^ 
fences,  or  perfect  Obedience  for  the  future  •,  both  which 
as  Sinners  we  are  uncapable  o\  ;  butFaith  in  theMcdiator, 
with  its  neceflary  and  infeparable  Concomitants,  Repen 
tance  and  newnefs  of  Life  ;  which  are  the  lowed  Terms 
of  our  being  reinftated  in  the  divineFavour,  which  a  wife 
and  holyGod  could  reafonably  be  fuppos'd  to  condefcend 
to,  confidently  with  the  Glory  of  his  own  Perfedions, 
and  which  are  in  their  own  Nature  requifite  and  condu 
cive  to  our  Recovery  from  the  Maladies  and  Miferies  of 
our  fallen  State.  Thefe  Terms  of  Pardon  and  Salvation 
God  has  mod  gracioufly  ordered  to  be  pubiidi'd  to  the 
World,  through  the  reconcilingSacrificeof  theRedeemer, 
2 Cor. 5.  18,  19.  All  'Things  are  of  God — v)ho  was  inChrift 
reconciling  the  World  unto  himfelf.  Mark  16.  15,  16.  G- 
j^  into  all  the  World,  and  preach  the  Gofpel  to  every  Crea- 
ture :  He  that  helieveth  {£is  baptized,pall  befaved.Luk.24.. 
46,47. — Thus  it  behovedChri§f  to  fuffer,^  to  rife  from  the 
Dead  the  third  Day  ;  and  that  Repentance  &  Rmiffwn  oj 
Sinsjhould  (thereupon)  be  preached  in  his  Name  among  all 
Nations, 

3.  The  Grace  of  this  Covenant  appears,  in  that  (tho* 
the  holy  Law  of  God  ceafes  not  to  require  the  mod  exad 
and  perfe6tObcdience,yet)  it  deliverech  us  from  theCurfe, 

which 


Chap.  IV.  cf  Infant-Baptifm.  205 

iwhich  our  Failures  wou'd  conftantly  expofe  us  to,  and 

accepts  the  Truth  and  Sincerity  of  our  Faith  and  other 

Graces,  and  of  our  holy  Obedience  fpringing  thence,  not- 

withftanding  the  manifold  Sins  &  Imperfections  attend- 

,ing  them  *,  providing  Pardon  uponRepentance  thro'Faith 

lin  the  Blood  of  Chnft,which  is  fecur'd  by  his  JntercefTion 

'lin  Behalt  of  all  Believers.  Rom.  6.  14.  SinJJjall  not  have 

\Dominion  over  you  •,  for  y£  are  not  under  theLaw^but  under 

Grace,  Tho'Sin  remains  inBelievers,being  but  imperfedl- 

]y  fanditied,  yet  through  the  Grace  of  the  new  Covenant 

they  are  delivered  from  its  condemning  Power.  For  there 

is  no  Condemnation  to  them  that  are  in  Chrift  Jefus  (Rom. 

8.  I.)  Who  are  upright  in  their  Obedience  to  the  Gofpel. 

I  Joh.i.  7.  If  we  walk  in  the  Lights  as  he  is  in  the  Lights 

we  have  Fellow jinp  one  with  another^  and  theBlood  of  Jefus 

Chrift  his  Son  cleanfeth  us  from  all  Sin.  Chap.  2.  i.  If  any 

Man  Jin^   we  have  an  Advocate  with  the  Father.^  J^f^s 

Chrifl  the  Righteous. 

4.  The  Grace  of  theCovenant  is  further  manifefled  in 
the  gracious  Promife  &  Gift  of  the  Spirit  through  Chrift 
for  Regeneration,  and  Sandification,   and  fo  to  work  ia 
jus  the  Conditions  which  the  Covenant  requires,  in  Order 
to  our  being  interefled  in  theBenefic  of  it.  £2,^/^.36.26,27. 
Zech.  12.  10.  Which  Offer  of  Grace  fufficient,in  thePro- 
;mifes,is  defign'd  as  a  Remedy  to  Man's  Impotency,  and 
ian  Encouragement  to  all,  in^a  Dependance  on  thatGrace 
to  work  out  their  Salvation.,  Prov.i.  23.  Phil.  2.  12,13. 
and  is  made  effectual  to  as  many  as  God  has  chofen.  To 
I  what  Purpofe  then  is  it,  for  Men  to  exclaim  againft  the 
;po:~irine  of  a  conditional  Covenant,  as  if  it  were  preju- 
idicial  either  to  theFreenefs,  or  certain  Efficacy  of  divine 
I  Grace  ?  Since  it  is  of  infinite  Grace,that  fuchConditions 
i  of  Mercy  are  forChrift'sSake  propounded  to  undone  Sin- 
ners, and  fince  it  is  by  the  Operations  of   divine  Grace 
that  they  are  enabled  to  perform  them  :  a«d  perform 
them  they  muft  in  their  own  Perfons,  or  otherwife  they 
fcan  exped  no  favingBenefit  of  theCovenant.  For  though 
it  is  from  the  Influence  of  the  divine  Spirit  by  theWord, 

that 


2  04  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  IV* 

that  the  Sinner  is  enabled  to  repent  and  believe,  yet  the 
Spirit  does  not  perform  thefe  Acts,  does  not  repent  and 
believe  in  him.  But  they  muil  be  theSinner's  own  volun- 
tary,chorenAds,before  he  can  have  any  ad-ualfavingln- 
tereft  in  thePrivileges  of  theCovenant.  But  how  contrary 
to  this  is  Dr.  G7//'s  Notion, that  all  Men  that  ever  had  aii 
Interefl  in  the  Covenanr,^^^^  it  fo  early  as  fromEverlafting  ; 
and  that  the   Covenant  was  made  with  them  in  Chrift 
from  Everlafling,  and  that  it  is  not  to  be  kept  by  Man,  nor  ^ 
broken  by  Man  ?  All  which  rafh  &  dangerous  AlTertions,  , 
as  they  are  contrary  to  Scripture, which  has  been  fhewed,  1 
fo  they  are  derogatory  to  the  divine  Government  in  the 
vifible  Church, the  Rule  or  Inltrument  whereof  is  God's 
Covenant  with  his  People  *,  and  tend  to  ennervate  the  ' 
Motives  to  Obedience,   as   they  apparently  exclude  all 
Conditions  orTerms  oi  Duty  from  theCovenant  of  Grace 
But  this  is  the  next  Thing  I  purpofe  to  prove. 

2.  That  the  Covenant  of  Grace  is  Conditional.  We 
have  feen  already  that  the  Freenefs  and  Efficacy  of  the 
Grace  of  God  is  not  at  all  diminifhed  by  our  aflerting 
Conditions  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  but  very  well  con- 
fifls  with  them.  To  make  this  further  evident,  let  me 
premife  a  few  Things,  i.  We  aflert  no  fuch  Conditions 
of  the  Covenant,  as  have  any  Thing  of  Merit  in  them, 
whether  of  Congruity  or  Condignity,  as  the  popifh  Doc- 
tors teach  •,  all  the  Promifes  and  Privileges  of  the  Cove- 
nant being  owing  to  the  Merit  of  Chrift  alone.  2.  We 
aflert  no  fuch  Conditions  as  are  performed  by  our  own 
natural  Power,  without  the  Ailiftance  of  fupernatural 
Grace.  3.  'Tis  granted,  there  neither  were,  nor  could 
be  any  fuch  Conditions  wrought  by  apoflate  Man,  as 
might  be  thought  to  move  God  to  enter  into  Covenant 
with  him,  in  Order  to  his  Reftoration  -,  the  making  a  fe- 
cond  Covenant  with  Man  after  the  Violation  of  the  firft, 
could  be  owing  to  no  other  Motive,  than  the  pure  free 
Grace  of  God  towards  Man,  for  the  Merits  fake  of  his 
Son  Jefus  Chrift.  4.  I  am  willing  alfo  to  grant,  that 
there  are  fome  Promifes  of  the  Covenant  that  have  no 

proper 


Thap.  IV.  of  Infant-Baptifmr  205 

proper  Conditions,  on  Man's  Part,  annexed  to  them  5  as 

he  Gift  of  Chrifland  of"  the  Spiric,the  firflGrace  where- 

3y  a  Sinner  is  enabled  to  repent  and  beheve  in  him  ;  the 

Fromile  oi God.' s  giving  a  new  Hearty  &c,  Ezek.  36.26. 

)  Of  God's  putting  his  Laws  in  their  Minds,   and  writing 

It  hem  in  their  Hearts^  Jer.  31.  7^'^.  Tho'  thefe  feem  rather 

sPredidions  of  whatGod  would  do  for  hisPeople  inafter- 

iTimes,  than  Promifes  directed  and  limited  to  any  certain 

ISubjed: ;  yet  I  willingly  admit   the  Diftin6lion   of  the 

?,,Promifes  of  theCovenantjlaid  down  by  fomeDivineSjinto 

jPromifes  that  concern  the  Means^  and  thofe  that  relate  to 

'^he  End.     Of  the  former  Sort  are  thofe  now  mentioned, 

jbf  the  Grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  enable  Sinners  to 

jperform  the  Conditions,  Faith  and  RepentancCjwhich  is 

|abfolutely  promifed  and  given,  and  depends  not  on  fore- 

1  going  Conditions  in  a  finful  Creature ;  yet  not  fo  abfo- 
lutely  as  to  exclude  all  preparatoryEndeavours  onMan's 
Part,  in  the  diligent  Ufe  of  the  Means  of  Grace,  or  to 
countenance  any  in   their  Sloth  and  Negligence.     But 
the  Grace  of  God  in  Chrift  being  at  the  Bottom   of  the 
whole  Tranfadlion  of  the  Covenant,  this  Grace  is  pro- 
jivided  in  Jefus  Chrift,  and    difpens'd  according   to  his 
|Wifdom  and  good  Pleafure  unto  Sinners,  in  the  Atten- 
^dance  on   the  Means  he  hath  appointed.     Of  the  latter 
ifSort,  are  all  the  Privileges  of  the  Covenant,  as  contradi- 
liftinguifhed  to  the  Duties  required  asMeans  of  theEnjoy- 
smenc  of  them  •,  ihePromifes  of  Pardon,  Reconciliation  to 
:God,Juftification,  Adoption,  and  the  eternal  Inheritance. 
fAnd  in  Refped  of  thefe,    the  Covenant   is  ftridly  and 
properly  Conditional,  as  appears  from  the  wholeCurrent 
of  Scripture  •,  wherein  there  is  a  conftant  Connexion  of 
Precepts  and  Promifes,  of  Duties  and  Privileges.     This 
may  be  prov'd, 

■  I.  From  the  Nature  of  God's  Covenanr,  which  here- 
in agrees  with  the  general  Nature  of  every  proper  Cove- 
nanr,wherein  rhere  are  mutual  Stipulations,  Content  and 
jAgreement  between  the  Parties  covenanting.  If  there 
liWere  no  Conditions  in  God's  Covenanr,  or  nothing  re- 
\  "  quir'd 


2o6  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  IV. 

quir'd  on  Man's  Part,  it  would  ceafe  to  have  the  proper 
Nature  of  a  Covenant.  A  Promife  it  might  be, but  not 
a  Covenant  ;  for  neither  a  Promire,nor  a  Command,  do- 
fimply  or  precifely  import  mutualStipuiations  orEngage- 
ments  between  God  andMan  •,  but  both  thefe  connected 
in  a  conditional  Form,  arc  requilite  Ingredients  in  every 
Covenant  ot  God  with  Man ;  that  is  to  fay,  BlefTings 
promifed  on  God's  Part,  upon  the  Performance  of  fomc- 
ihing  required  on  Man's  Part,  which  being  agreed  oa 
between  God  and  Man,  fuppofe  a  conditionalCovenant. 
And  fuchCommands  as  makeup  theCondition  on  Man's 
Parr,  there  are  in  every  Covenant  God  hath  made  with 
him  ;  not  only  in  the  Covenant  of  Works  before  the 
Fall,  but  in  theCovenant  of  Grace  made  with  fallenMan 
in  Chrift,  fomething  is  required  to  be  done  by  him  in 
Order  to  his  Intereft  in  the  Promifes  of  it,tho'  the  Com- 
mands of  thefe  leveral  Covenants  are  of  a  different  Na- 
ture, and  to  be  perform'd  from  different  Principles  and 
to  different  Ends. 

2.  If  there  were  no  Conditions  in  the  Covenant  of 
Grace,  on  which  the  Bleflings  of  the  Covenant  are  fuf- 
pended,thenGod  only,one  of  theParties,would  be  bound, 
and  Man  the  other  Party  would  be  left  at  Liberty,  and 
under  no  Obligations  to  God  by  Covenant ;  Which  is 
unreafonable  and  abfurd. 

3.  If  there  be  no  Conditions  in  the  Covenant  of 
Grace,  then  the  Covenant  may  be  faid  to  be  made  witl\ 
Man  without  any  Confent  on  his  Part,  which  is  an  open 
Abfurdity.  If  it  be  faid,  Man  may  accept  and  confent 
to  an  unconditional  Promife  and  Covenant  :  I  aik.  Is, 
this  Confent  required  or  not  ?  If  it  be  not  required, Man 
is  not  bound  to  confent-,  nay,if  it  be  neither  exprefty  nor 
implicitly  requir'd,  he  has  no  Warrant  to  accept  it,  or 
confent  to  it.  If  it  be  requir'd,  this  Confent  is  the  main 
Thing  requifite  in  the  Condition  of  the  Covenant  ;  yea, 
if  it  be  fincerc,  it  virtually  comprehends  all  the  Condi-? 
lions  required;  therefore  theCovenant  isConditionaL  But, 

>4 .  l^hat  which  ^makes   it    evident  beyond  Contra- 

diction. 


Chap.  IV.  of  Infant- Baptifm.  20 

didion.  That  theCovenant  of  Grace  is  Conditional,  is, 
that  the  Covenant  and  faving  Benefits  and  Erivileges 
of  it  are  conflantly  in  Scripture  propounded  to  Sin- 
ners on  certain  Conditions,  or  Terms  of  Duty,  to  be  by 
them  performed.  As,  Ifai.  c,^.  3.  Incline  your  Ear^ 
come  unto  me^  Hear  :  (  there's  the  Condition  in  thefe 
ExprelTions,  implying  Faith  and  Repentance,  where- 
upon God  promifesj  and  your  Souls  fiall  live  j  and  I  will 
make  an  everlajHng  Covena7Jt  with  you ^ev en  the  fureMercies 
of  David.  I  might  fill  a  Volume  with  Quotations  from 
Scripture,that  run  in  this  conditional  Form.  I  ih  ill  only 
Inftance  in  fomeof  the  main  Privileges  of  theCovenant, 
and  fhew  from  a  Text  or  two  of  Scripture,  that  they  are 
propounded  and  promifed  to  Sinners,  no  othcrwife  thaa 
Conditionally  -,  and  the  Conditions  are  Repentance,  and 
Faith  in  Chrift.  E.G.  Pardon  of  Sin,  Atl.^.ig.  Repenf 
ye  and  he  converted^that your  Sins  may  he  blotted  out.  Chap. 
16.  43.  To  him  give  all  the  Prophets  witnefs^  that  through 
his  Name^  whofoevfr  believeth  in  him  fh all  receive  Remijjion 
of  Sins.  Juftification  is  conftantly  annexed  to  Faith  as 
the  Condition.  Rom.  4.  22,  23.  Now  it  was  not  written 
for  his  fake  alone ^  (viz.  Abraham's)  that  it  was  imputed  un- 
to hiwybut  for  us  alfo ;  to  whom  itfhall  be  imputed^if  we  he^ 
lieve  in  him  that  raifed  up  Jefus  cur  hord  from  the  Dead. 

Gal,  2.  16. Even  we  have  believed  in  Jefus  Chrifi^ 

that  we  might  he  juflified  by  the  Faith   of  Chrift. 

Adoption,  2  Cor.  6.  17,  18.  Wherefore  come  out  from 
among  them, and  he  ye  feparate,  faith  the  Lord^ — and  I  will 
'receive  you ',  and  I  will  be  a  Father  unto  you,  andyefhall 
he  my  Sons  and  Daughters.  Joh.  i .  1 2 .  As  many  as  received 
him,  to  them  gave  he  Power  to  become  the  Sons  of  God, even 
U)  them  that  believe  on  his  Name,  And  the  Everlafting 
Inheritance,  Adl.  26.18.  To  open  their  Eyes,to  turn  them 
\  fromDarknefs  to  Light — That  they  may  receive  For ^ivenefs  of 
Sins,^  Inheritance  among  them  which  are  fan^fified  by  Faith. 
Joh.  6,4.0.  This  is  the  Will  of  him  that  Jen t  me,  that  every 
one  that  feeth  the  Son  and  believeth  on  him,  may  have  ever- 
i  lofting  Life.     Ail  thefe  are  confeiQcdIy  the  Fromifes  and 

Privileges 


2o8  A  defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  IV. 

Privileges  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  and  are  annexed  to 
Repentance  &  Faith  in  Chrift,  as  Conditions  of  theParti- 
cipation  of  them.  If  a  Man  be  already  in  the  Covenant 
of  Grace,  and  inftated  in  a  Right  to  thefe  Privileges,  it 
is  doing  him  an  Injury  to  impofe  new  Terms.      But, 

5.  All  thefe  Promifes  and  Privileges  of  the  Covenant 
are  fufpended,  'till  Sinners  perform  thofe  Conditions  ; 
'till  they  repent  and  believe  inChriil.  OurSaviour  often 
declares,  Except  ye  repent^  ye  JImll  ferijh^  Luk.  13.  3,  5. 
And  except  a  Man  be  born  again^he  cannot  fee  the  Kingdom 
of  God^  Joh.  3.  3.  But  left  any  one  of  Dr.  G/7/'s  Sen- 
timents Ihould  fay,  that  is  meant  of  the  Kingdom  of  God 
being  manifefted  to  them,  our  Saviour  adds,  ver.  5.  He 
cannot  enter  into  the  Kingdom  of  God,  And  if  withoutRe- 
generation  no  Man  can  enter  into  theKingdom  of  God, 
then  furely  not  into  Covenant  with  God  •,  for  the  King- 
dom of  God,under  the  Gofpel-Difpenfation,  means  the 
fame  Thing  in  Ef!e6l  with  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  which 
is  the  great  Inftrument  of  the  divine  Government  in  the 
Hand  of  Chrift.  Again  he  faith,>^. i^.He  that  believeth 
notyis  condemned  already.  And  ii.^(>.  He  that  believeth  not 
the  Son^fhallnot  fee  Life-,  but  the  IVrath  of  God  abide th 
en  him.  Now,  if  that  may  be  called  a  Condition,thePer- 
formance  whereof  is  required  to  the  obtaining  a  Benefit, 
the  Beftowment  of  which  Benefit  is  fufpended  'till  it  be 
performed,  then  furely  no  Words  can  more  plainly  ex- 
prefs  the  Conditionality  of  the  Covenant,  than  thofe  here 
cited  ;  fince  thefe  Covenant- Privileges  and  Benefits  are 
promifed  only  to  believing  repenting  Sinners  ;  and  all 
others  are  in  exprefs  Terms  excluded. 

6.  The  Covenant  of  Grace  is  often  fpoken  of  inScrip- 
ture  under  the  Refemblance  of  a  Marriage-Covenant. 
The  Similitude  is  fo  frequent  and  familiar  in  Scripture, 
that  to  refer  to  particular  Texts  is  needlefs  :  And  every 
one  knows,  that  the  mutual  Confcnt  and  Engagement 
of  the  refpeftive  Parties  to  each  other,  is  requifite  to  the 
Validity  ot  fuch  a  Covenant  •,  and  this  mutual  Confent 
is  the  mainThing  in  which  the  Refemblance  betwixt  this, 

and 


Chap.  IV.  of  Infant- Baptlfm.  209 

and  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  is  to  be  underflood.  There 
is  the  Promife  on  God's  r^arr,  and.Acccpuance  o^:  Con knc 
on  Man's,  to  his!  erms  -,  which  anfwers  aJvL-rr  age-Con- 
trad:.  Can  a  Soul  be  efpoufed  toChrift  without  i:s  owa 
Confent  ?  Tho'  it  is  by  his  Grace  this  Confent  is  g.iin'd  ; 
neverthelefs  it  mufl  be  the  Man's  own  Aci.  in  cominf-- 
into  Covenant,  elie  there  is  no  fpiritualMarriage,  Which 
plainly  dcmoniirates  the  Covenant  of  Grace  to  be  Con- 
ditional :  And  fuch  Conditions  are  often  prefcribed  as  are 
proper  to  a  Marriage-Covenant,as  WQ{.i.^.'Thcu  Jhalt  not 
be  for  a  net  her  Man  ^fo  will  I  alfo  he  for  /to.Pra.45. 10,1 1.  • 

7.  Goipel-Miniilers  are  appointed  by  God  to  oiler 
Chrift  and  his  Benefits  unto  all,  according  to  the  1  enor 
of  the  Covenant  of  Grace  :■'  For  they  are  Minijiers  cf  the 
New -'Tefi anient^  2  Cor.  3.  6.  appointed  Preachers  of.  the 
New-Covenant  ;  this  mull  be  their  Rule  and  Guide  ia 
all  their  Preaching  :  Plence  they  nnufl  take  all  theirMea- 
fures,&  receive  ail  their  Inftructions.  Now  Miniflers  are 
warranted  by  their  Commiirion,to  offer  Chriil,  andLiie^ 
and  Salvation  by  him  to  all  their  Hearers,  eirher  abib- 
lutely,  or  conditionally.  If  abfoiutely,then  all  that  hear 
them  without  Diitinction,  whe  her  they  confent  to  the 
Gofpel-Rule  or  no  •,  whether  they  will  take  Chrift'sYoke 
upon  them  or  no  •,  whether  penitent  or  perfillhig.  Sin- 
ners may  claim  an  Intereft  in  him.  and  in  all  theBtnedt-^ 
of  Salvation  as  an  abfolute  free  Gilt  •,  becaufe  it  is  fup- 
pofed,  there  are  no  I'erms  or  Provifo's  in  this  OuVr, 
whereby  any  one  is  excluded.  But  if  this  be  accounted 
abfurd,  as  indeed  it  is,  and  contrary  to  theirCom million 
which  direds  &  impowers  them  to  make  this  Offer  onbr 
Conditionally,  Mar.  15.  16. — Preach  the  Go fpel  to  every 
Creature  \  he  that  helrjeth  and  is  haptized^floall  he  faved  : 
He  that  believeth  not  Jh all  he  damned  : — -'i  hen  the  Cove- 
nant which  they  preach,  muft  be  Conditional. 

8.  If  there  be  no  Conditions  in  theCovenant  o'iGv:ic?y 
then  Miniilers  and  Churches  have  no  certain  Rule  to 
proceed  by,  in  admitting  Perfons  into  Church-Commu- 
nion.    The  Church  of  God  is  founded  on  theCovcDanr,- 

P  and 


2IO         A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.IV. 

and  being  a  Society  confederated  in  the  Bonds  of  the 
Covenant,  they  can  have  no  other  Guide  in  this  Matter, 
than  aPcrfon's  Intereft  in  the  Covenant,  fo  far  as  it  can 
be  made  viable  and  evident  to  Men.  But  if  there  be  no 
Conditions  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  they  have  no 
Warrant  to  debar  any  Perfon,  of  what  Charadlcr  foever, 
becaule  he  is  not  debar'd  by  any  Conditions  or  Terms 
prefcribed. 

9  If  there  be  no  Conditions  in  theCovenant  of  Grace, 
than  thofe  that  profefs  Covenant-Rehuion  to,  or  Interefh 
in  God, are  under  no  grcaterObhgations  to  theirDuty  to 
God,  than  they  were  before  fuchProfefllon  :  Then  their 
Sins  againft  God  are  no  more  aggravated,  than  the  Sins 
of  others  that  make  no  fuch  Profeflion  •,  becaufe,  'tis 
fuppos'd,  they  are  under  no  more  Ties  &  Engagements 
to  their  Duty,  by  any  Conditions  of  the  Covenant,  than 
others.  Which  is  contrary  to  found  Reafon  &Scripture. 
Therefore  the  Covenant  mufl  have  Conditions  annexed 
to  it.  I  might  multiply  the  abfurd  Confequences  of  the 
contrary  Opinion  :  but  theReafons  I  have  produc'd  are 
fufncienr,  plainly  to  demonftate  theCovenant  of  Grace 
to  be  Conditional.  'Tis  therefore  idle  and  erroneous,  to 
talk  as  Cr.  G///does,  of  iMen's  being  in  theCovenant,or 
cf  the  Covenant  of  Grace  being  made  with  them  inChrifl 
theirHead,from  Everlalling  \  or  of  a  Covenant  that  can- 
not be  kept  by  Man',  &:c.  Which  fuppoles  noConditi- 
cns  at  all  unpos'd  or  requir'd  of  Men  m  order  to  a  Co- 
venant-Intereft. 

I  lliall  only  further  obfcrvc,  That  the  main  Reafon 
for  which  fonie  have  entertained  the  Notion  of  theCove- 
nant being  abfolute  without  Conditions,  is  their  obferv- 
ing  that  there  are  Promifes  of  thisCovenant  inScripture, 
th.ii:  Ikivc  no  Conditions  annexed  to  them  ;  particularly 
theProniifcsGod  makes  of  the  New-Covenant  in  that  re- 
markable Prophecy,  Jer.  31.  3?, — 34.  quoted  at  large 
by  tneApoille,  as;  fullilled  in  iheNew-TellamentChurch, 
l-(cb.  8.  12. —  ^I'bis  is  theCozenant  that  I  will  wake  with 
tha  ILuf:  of  IfracI,  after  ibcfe  Dnys^  faith  the  Lord  :  I 

ivi:l 


Chap.  IV.  ^/ Infant- Baptlfm.  211 

will  put  my  Laws  into  their  Mind,  &c.  Wherein,  'tis 
obfervable,  there  are  only  Fromifes  of  Grace  contained. 
To  this  let  me  anfwer, 

1.  To  all  that  have  read  the  Scriptures,  it  is  apparent, 
that  it  was  not  the  Defign  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  in  any  one 
Text  or  PaiTage  ol  Scripture,  to  give  us  a  compleat 
Draught  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  as  to  theMatter  and 
Form,  and  all  ihe  Requifites  of  it.  But  thefe  are  to  be 
colledled  from  various  Pafiages  interfpers'd  thro'out  the 
v^hole  Scripture  :  And  if  Fromifes  only  are  to  be  found 
in  the  forementioned  PalTage,  'tis  fufficienr,  thattheCon- 
dicions  are  eliewhere  in  Scripture  exprefly  and  plainly 
prefcrib'd. 

2.  If  the  Conditions  be  not  exprefTed  in  the  PaiTage 
cited,  they  are  plainly  underftood  in  the  confederate  Sub- 
je6l,  tbe  Houfe  of  Ifniely  who  were  already  in  Covenant. 
And  this  Denomination  of  the  Subjeifl  being  applied  by 
the  Apoitle  to  the  Chrillian  Church,  or  Believers  under 
the  Gofpeljthey  were*fuch  as  had  actually  complied  with 
the  Conditions  of  the  Covenant.  And  'tis  granted, that 
the  Conditions  being  performed,  the  Fromifes  become 
abfolute,and  are  no  longer  fufpended. 

3.  Even  in  abfolute  Fromifes  there  is  fome  Condition 
implicitly  required,  in  Order  to  aParticipation  of  them  : 
If  an  abfolutely  free  Gift  be  tendered  me  in  a  Fromife, 
'tis  underftood,  that  I  fnould  confent  to  accept  it,  other- 
wife  I  can't  reafonably  expe6l  thePoiTeirion  of  it ;  or  any 
Benefit  by  it  :  So  thofe  Fromifes  that  feem  to  run  in  an 
unconditional  Strain,  do  yet  imply  this  reafonable  Con- 
dition, that  we  confent  to  them, accept  them, plead  them, 
and  improve  them  as  Grounds  of  Dependance  and  En- 
couragements to  Obedience,  and  if  this  Confent  be  cor- 
dial andfincere,  it  virtually  comprizes^^as  was  faid}alhhe 
Conditions  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace. 

4.  The  Fromifes  in  the  PaiTage  cited,  do  very  clearly 
hold  forthConditions  on  our  Part.  The  firit  of  thofePro- 
mifes,  Iwillpui  my  Laws  in  their  Minds ^  and  write  them 
in  their  Hearts^  implies  Matter  of  Duty   imcumbent  on 

F  2  us 


2rz         A  Bcfe::ce ,of  the  Bhlne  R'ight         Chap.  IV* 

us  in  Obedience  to  rheLaw  of  theNew-Covenant  ;Faith> 
Repentance,  even  ail  tb<-  Conditions  of  the  Covenant  ; 
and  God's  i^romife  of  Grace  to  direct  and  incline  our 
Hearts  to  thofe  Duties,  which  is  meant  by  bis  writijig 
bis  Laws  in  tbem,  dues  not  take  away  our  Obligation  to 
them,  or  mai^e  themceafe  to  have  a  conditional  Refpedt 
in  the  Covenant  ;  but  rather  coniirms  &  eftabHfhes  both 
the  one  and  the  other.  And  that  comprehenfivePromife, 
/  vrill  be  to  them  a  God^  and  they  foall  be  to  me  a  People^ 
makes  both  God's  Part  and  ours  in  the  Covenant, which 
is  its  conftanc  Tenor  throughout  the  Scriptures ;  and  all 
that  can  be  infered  hence,  is,  That  God  has  promifed 
Grace  to  enable  us  to  perform  the  Conditions,  (  which  is 
readily  granted)  but  nothing  can  be  concluded  hence,  a- 
gainil  the  Conditionality  of  the  Covenant  it  k\L 

3  The  Covenant  of  Grace  has  been  always  one  and 
the  fame  in  its  efTentiai  Conftitution  &  Tenor,  under  va- 
rious outward  Forms  of  Adminiilration,  both  under  the 
Old  and  New-Teilament. 

/'}>/?,  TheCovenant  ofGracehas  pals'd  undcrvarious 
Foi'ms  of  Adminiilration, before  &  fmce  ChriirsComing  ; 
it  has  been  diverHy  admiiniifred  in  the  feveral  remarkable 
Periods  under  the  Old-Teif arnent. .  (i.)  In  the  Period 
from  Adam  to  Abraham  (not  to  take  Notice  of  the  leiTer 
Difference  of  Adminiftration  in  the  Period  {vomNoab  io 
A'jrabam)  it  was  adminilier'd  by  Promifes,  Sacrifices, and 
l'y»;es.  It  was  fummariiy  promulgated  in  the  Promife 
or  the  Seed  cf  the  Woman.  Gen*  3.15.  It  was  typically  ra- 
tified by  Sacrifices:  ^_y  F^///?  (iiiith  the  Apoille)  Abel 
offer  d  Sacrifice  acceptable  to  God,  whofe  Faith  and  the 
Acceptance  of  his  Sacrifice,  neceffarily  fuppofes  a  divine 
Sacrifice.  Ab€i\yiow<^^.2XiOik.x\'c\^of the Ftrftlings.  Gen. 
4.  4.  And  withRcfped  hereunto,  it  is  probable,  Chriff  is 
cail'd  the  Lamb  flain  from  tb.eFoundation  of  theWorid. 
(2.)  In  the  Period  Irom  Arahara  to  Mcfes^  there  was  a 
new  Adminiflration  of  the  Covenant  appointed.  When 
Mankind  aiur  theFiood  had  degenerated  intolgnorance, 
Liipicty,  and  Idolatry,  Q^a  called  Abraham  into  fpecial 

Covenant, 


Chap.  IV.  ^/ Infant-Baptifin.  2r^ 

Covenant,  promiicd  him  a  Seed,  and  particularly  that 
the  McJJias  iliould  be  of  his  Seed, in  whom  all  theNations 
of  the  Earth  fliould  be  blelTed  •,  and  that  theLin'i  of  the 
vifibleChurch  fliould  be  continued, &;thetrueReiigion  fet- 
tled among  his  Race  &  Poftericy  for  many  Generations, 
till  the  blelFed  Seed  fliould  come  ;  and  ordained  Circum- 
cifion  to  be  a  Token  and  Seal  of  that  Covenant.  And 
this  may  be  a  Reafon  why  God  now  firfl  appointed  an 
initiating  Seal  to  hisCovenanr,  in  Circumcifion  ;  becaufe 
theChurchof  God,  and  the  true  Religion,  had  been  be- 
fore kept  up  in  pious  Families,  interfpers'd  among  the 
Reft  of  the  World,  without  any  vifible  Didinclion  ;  And 
becaufe  the  Promife  of  the  MeiTias,  the  Seed  of  the  Wo- 
man, was  before  left  at  large  among  the  whole  Race  of 
Adam,  But  now  it  pleafedGod  to  confine  it  to  the  Seed  of 
Abraham;  therefore  Circumcifion  was  appointed  to  be  a 
difcriminatingBadge  of  the  chofcn  Seed  irom  the  Reit  of 
the  Nations,  till  the  coming  of  the  i>/[eirias,  the  promifed 
Seed.  And  not  only  to  point  out,  and  afcertain  the  Line 
of  the  Mejfias  (for  when  this  Line  was  again  limited  to 
the  Tribe  oUjudah^  &  afterward  to  the  Family  o^  David, 
yet  the  other  Tribes  &  Families  continued  theObfervance 
of  Circumcifion, according  to  theprim.itivelnftitution)  but 
to  diftinguiQi  the  Covenant-People  cf  God,  not  only  of 
Abraham's  natural  Seed,  but  of  the  Strangers  that  fnould 
join  themfelves  to  them  in  Abraham's  Covenant  ;  and  to 
be  the  Means  of  propagating  the  true  Religion  to  their 
Children  and  Poilerity.  (  ^.)  In  the  Period  from  Mofcs 
to  Chrift  there  was  a  differentAdminiftration.  When  the 
Seed  of  Abraham  and  Ifrael  was  become  a  Nation,  they 
were  brought  out  of  Egypt  under  the  Conduct  of  Mcfcsy 
by  whole  Miniftry  they  received  the  Law  from  God  at 
Mount  ^tnm^  in  the  Nature  of  a  Covenant,  v/hereby  they 
were  embodied  into  a  Common  Wealth  c  God  himfclf 
became  their  King  by  their  own  Confent,  wh(  gave  them 
I.aws  and  Ordinances  for  the  Government  of  their  civil 
State,  as  vvxU  as  facred  Inftitutions  for  the  i  emulating 
their  ecclcfiaftical  Affairs  •,.  a  new  Miniftry  &  Priefthoocl 

P   ;  v.a-.5 


214  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.  IV. 

was  eftahlifli'd,  and  a  Variety  of  Sacrifices,  Feftlvals,  and 
odier  Rites  inftituced,  which  were  defign'd  as  Prefigura- 
tions  ot  Chrill,  and  the  Gofpei-Beneiits  of  Redemption  •, 
and  Prophets  railed  up  &  fenr  them  from  Time  toTime, 
to  declare  God's  Will  to  them,  and  to  give  them  fuller 
and  clearer  Predidions  o^ the  Meffias,  his  Perfon,  Offices, 
and  Benefits.  And  under  this  Adminiilration  the  Church 
of  the  old  Teflament  continued  till  theComing  of  Chrift. 
(4.)  In  the  New-Teftament  Period,  after  the  Coming  of 
Chrifl,  and  his  having  fulfilled  the  Ordinances  andTypes 
of  the  Old-Tellament,  and  aboiifh'd  them,  he  inftituted 
a  new  Adminiftration  of  the  Covenant,  far  more  excel- 
lent &  glorious  than  the  former  •,  and  having  compleated 
Atonement  for  Sin  by  his  own  Blood, which  all  theBlood 
fhed  from  the  Beginning  of  the  World  could  not  do  ; 
after  his  Refurredion  from  the  Dead,  he  inftituted  a 
Gofpel-Miniilry,to  preach  theDodlrine  of  thcNew-Cove- 
nant,  and  to  adminifter  the  Seals  of  it,  Baptifm  and  the 
Lord's- Supper,  as  the  outwardMeans  of  the  Difpenfati  jn 
and  Application  of  the  Covenant  to  the  Souls  of  Men. 
But  no7/,  ^ 

Secondly,  The  Covenant  of  Grace  is  one  &  the  fame 
for  Subftance,  under  all  thefe  divers  Forms  of  Admini- 
ftration ;  therefore  it  is  called  in  Scripture  the  Everlafling 
Covenant.  Ifai.  55.  3.  Heb.  13.  20.  For  though  theMan- 
ner  of  Adminiftration,  which  depends  on  the  fupream 
Will  and  Wifdomof  the  Legiflitor,  hath  been  changed, 
yet  the  Covenant  it  felf,  in  its  eifentialConftitution,  hath 
the  fame  immutable  &  perpetualTcnor  :  therefore  it  may 
be  on  good  Grounds  allerted,  that  God's  Covenant  with 
his  People  under  the  01d-Teftament,in  thofefeveral  Pe- 
riods, was  the  fame  for  Subftance  with  that  which  is 
made  vvirh  New-Teftament  Believers.  Which  may  be 
thus  proved. — 

1 .  The  Mediator  of  the  Covenant  is  the  fame  :  Jifus 
Chrifl  the  fmneT'ft~rdcTj,toDay^rnd for  Ev(r,  Hcb.  13.  8. 
Chnil's  Mediation  ever -was  the  fole  Ground  of  the  Co- 
venant, and  the  favjng  Benefits  of  it  difpens'd  to  finful 

Men 


Chap.  IV.  ^/ Infant-Baptifm.  %t^ 

Men  from  theBeginning.  He  was  the Lamh  fiain  from  ihs 
Foundation  of  the  World.  And  thcApoflle  Peter  referring 
to  theFathers  of  the  Old-Tellamenr,  faith,  A6b.  15.  11. 
We  believe  that  through  the  Grace  of  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrifh 
we  Jha'l  be  faved.,even  as  they.  The  Saints  therefore  of  he 
Old  Teftament  were  faved,  no  oiherwife  than  through 
the  Grace  of  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift. 

2.  The  Matter  of  the  Covenant  is  the  fame  :  I  will 
be  your  God,  and  the  God  of  your  Seed.,  and  ye  fJ: all  be  my 
People.  This  is  the  Sum  of  the  Covenant,  and  has  been 
the  invariable  Tenor  of  it,  under  every  Difpenfation. 
Hence  the  Promife  made  by  God  to  confederate  Ifraely 
Lev.  26.  11,12.  I  will  fet  my 'Tabernacle  amcnz ft  you  ^ — - 
and  I  will  walk  among  you^  and  will  be  your  God.,  and  ye 
JJoall  be  my  People  -,  is  quoted  by  the  Apoftle,  and  applied 
to  the  Chriftian  Church,  2  Cor.  6.  r6. — I'e  are  iheTeni- 
pie  of  the  living  God.,  asGod  hath  (sadyl  will  dwell  in  them, 
and  walk  in  them  \  and  I  will  he  their  God^  and  they  fhall 
he  my  People.  As  this  Promife  was  made  to  the  wliole 
People  q{  Ifrael.^  including  their  Seed  undeniably,  fo  it  is 
made  to  the  whole  Chriftian  Church,  the  Gofpel-Ifrael, 
including  theirSeed  alfo.  And  it  is  apparent,  beyondCon- 
tradi6lion,thatChildren  have  been  taken  in  with  their  Pa- 
rents, into  every  Covenant  God  has  made  with  Man, and 
under  every  Difpenfation  of  it.  Not  to  fpeak  of  theCo- 
venant  made  with  Adam.,  and  all  his  Children  and  Pofte- 
rity  in  his  Loins,  which  accounts  for  the  Imputation  of 
his  Sin,  and  the  penal  EfFeds  of  it,  to  his  Pofterity  :  I 
fhall  only  obferve,  that  tho'  the  Covenant  of  Grace  was 
never  made  with  any  meer  Man,  as  a  common  Head  ("as 
the  firft  Covenant  wais  made  with  Adam)  fo  as  that  the 
Remedy  fhould  be  as  univerfally  extenfive  as  theMalady^ 
yet  God  has  appointed  this  fecond  Covenant  to  run  in 
the  fame  Tenor  all  along,  to  believing  godlyParents  and 
their  Seed  ;  as  might  be  made  m.anifeft  by  a  particular 
Indu6lion  of  the  feveral  Editions  and  Difpenfations  of  it. 
Thus, in  the  firftEdition  of  it,imniediateiy  after  thePall ; 
God's  Promife  di putting  Enmity  betv/een  the  Seed  of  the 

P  ^  Woman 


2i6  A  "Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  IV, 

IVcman  and  \h2Lt  of  I  be  Serpent,  and  that  the  Woman's 
Scaijh'  tild  bruife  the  Serpent's  Head,  Gen. 3 . 1 5.  The  Seed 
cf  the  fVoman  (as  alfo  the  Seed  ot  Abraham)  intends  not 
only  that  eminent  and  bleffed  St^d,  Chrifl,  but  being  a 
colledive  Term,  ii.tends  alio  a  Church-Seed,  as  diftin- 
guifli'd  from  the  ungodly  World.  And  not  only  theA- 
dulr,  but  the  Infant- Seed  is  underflood  by  the  Seed  of  the 
U  onian  ;:  as  upon  the  Birth  of  Seth,  Eve  faid,  God  bath 
appointed  me  a^wther  Seed  inftead  oi  Abel,  Gen.  4.  25. 
In  the  Covenant  with  Noah,  the  lecondFather  of  the  hu- 
man Race.  Gen.  9.  8,9.  God  fpake  unto  Noah  and hisSons 
*'doiih  hinj,  faying^  And  I,behold,I  eftatlijh  ?nyCovenant  with 
you,  and  your  Seed  after  you.  In  the  Covenant  with  Abra- 
ham moll:  exprefly,  Gen.  17.7.  In  the  Coyenant  with  the 
whole  I  loufe  of  Ifrael  from  Mount  Sinai,  As  Mofes  de- 
clares to  them  forty  Years  after,  Deut.  5.  2,3.  The  Lord 
cur  God  made  a  Covenant  with  us  in  Horeb  \  the  Lord  made 
7iot  t  hi  jCovenant  wilh  our  Fat  hers,{Lt.not  with  them  only) 
but  zvilh  us,  even  with  us, who  are  all  of  Us  alive  here  this 
Day.  Moft  of  whom  then  living,  Vvrere  at  the  giving  of 
the  Law  from  Mount  Sinai  Children  and  Infants,  or  un- 
born, yet  rhe  Covenant  was  made  with  them  as  repre- 
Icnred  by  their  Parents.  And  in  the  folemn  Renewal  of 
this  Covcnafit  arttrwards,  their  little  Ones  are  exj^refly 
compiehenced  among  thole  that  cntreci  intoCovenant  with 
the  Lcrd  ^bei)  Gcd^  \jeut.  29.11,12.  And  it  is  moreover 
cbkivabic,  th..t  the  Apoliie  Paul,  in  Rom.  10.  6,  7,  8. 
qii<u\^  a  i' aflame  ircm  the  following  Chapter,  Deut.  30. 
(in  v.h.ch  Mcfes  continues  his  Difcourfe  of  God's  Cove- 
ii  nt  with  I/yael,  in  which  their  httle  Ones  v/ere  included) 
to  illudrate  theNature  of  tlie  evangelicalCovenant  :  And 
thereupon  adds,  Rom.  10.  8.  1  his  is  the  Word  of  Faith 
whith  we pr tech.  Whence  11  may  plainly  be  demonlira- 
tea,  that  the  Covenant  undtr  both  Adminillraticns  is 
clientially  the  fame,  particLic..rly  in  Refped  of  it's  F-xrent 
to  the  Infant  Children  of  the  confederatePeople.  Which 
is  alio  evident  from  the  Apofflei^^/^r's Words, A(ft.2. 39. 
The  Fromije  is  unto  you  and  to  your  Children  :  As  I  Iliall 
iT.cv./  more  fully  under  a  foHovv^ing  Head.  3, 


Chap.  IV.  ^/ Infant  Baptlfm.  217 

3.  The  Conditions  of  the  Covenant  are  the  fame  in 
general  -,  the  fame  Faith  and  Obedience,\vhich^GQd  ever 
required  of  his  Covenant  People  -,  Faith, as  the  primary 
Condition  of  the  Covenant;  (Dbedience,  as  a  confequent 
Condition.  Tho  Faidi  in  Chrift  was  more  impHcited  re- 
quired under  the  Old  Teftament,  and  more  exprefly  un- 
der the  New,  when  the  promifed  Seed  was  exhibited  : 
Yet  God's  Promife  to  his  People  of  Old,  did  implicitly 
require  Faith,  which  was  the  Root  of  all  theirObedience 
to  hiS'Commands.  Hence  theApoftle  brings  in  the  moil 
eminent  Saiitsot  the  Old-Tefl:ament,into  the  Catalogue 
ot  Behevers,  Heb.  11.  and  attributes  their  fmgular  and 
heroick  Acts  of  Piety  to  their  Faith,  as  the  FZvidences 
and  Demonftrations  of  it  ;  and  he  elfewhere  plainly  in- 
timates, that  the  Old  Teftament  Saints  and  New-Tefta- 
rnent  Belitrvers,  have  the  fame  Spirit  of  Faith  ^  2Cor.4. 13, 

4.  i  he  Sacraments  under  both  Teilaments,tho'  con- 
fi:r:ng  of  ditterent  Rites,  had  the  fame  fpiritual  Ufe  and 
Sign  .icaiiori.  Circumcifion  and  Baptifm,  the  initiating 
Sacraments,  reprefented  and  figniPied  the  fame  iplritual 
Myftery,  as  they  were  both  the  Signs  and  Seals  of  the 
Covenant  ol  Grace,  Rom.\.ii.  Mar.  16.  16.  They  both 
figOiiied  Regeneraiion,  the  Mortification  of  Sin,  or  the 
fumng  off  the  Body  of  the  Sins  of  the  Flefh^  Col.  2.1 1,12. 
The  Palchal  Farnb  reprefented  and  prefigured  ChrifPs 
Sacrifice  ;  and  the  Pafchal  Feafb,  the  holy  Supper  which 
is  our  P'eafbon  the  Memorials  of  the  greatSacrifice.  iCor, 
5.  /,8.  They  of  old  had  fignificantTypes,  which  had  the 
general  Nature  of  Sacraments  (tho'  extraordinary)  repre- 
fenting  the  fameThing  with  our  Sacraments.  T^hey  -were 
all  baptized  untoMofes  in  the  Cloud^and  in  the  Sea  (faith  the 
Apollie)  and  did  all  eat  the  fame  fpiritual  Meat^  and  did  all 
drink  the  fpiritual  Drinky  (for  they  drank  of  the  Rock 
that  followed  them, and  that  Rock  v/as  Chrifl  )  1  Cor.  10, 
2,3,4.  Our  Sacraments  differ  from  their's  in  Point  of 
Clearnefs  and  Efficacy,  and  eafinefs  of  Obfervance  ;  but 
they  had  the  fame  fpiritual  Intent  and  Meaning,thefame 
Place  and  Ufe  v/ith  ours,  v/ith  Reiped  to  the  Covenant. 

And 


2 1 8  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.  IV, 

And  therefore  I  need  infift  on  nothing  more,  to  fliew  that 
the  Covenant  of  Grace  was  fubftantially  the  fame  to  them 
and  us.  That  which  has  given  Occafion  to  fome,  to  take 
up  the  Opinion,  that  they  were  two  different  Covenants, 
is  the  Oppofition  which  theilpoftle  Paul  makes  between 
the  Law  and  Faiths  and  between  Works  and  Grace .  yet 
however  that  Oppofition  be  underftood,  which  it  is  not 
my  prefent  Bufincfs  to  examine  or  difpute,  I  think  there 
are  irrefragable  Arguments  to  prove,  that  the  Covenant 
with  Ifrael  at  Mount  Sinai  was  the  Covenant  of  Grace  in 
Chrift,  typically  adminiftred  ;  tho'  there  was  a  Reprefen- 
tation  of  the  rigorous  Exa6tion  of  theCovenant  of  Works, 
for  evangelical  Purpofes  :  And  tho'  the  Laws  given  to 
Ifrael^  as  a  Common-VVealth  or  Politick  Body,  called  the 
Judicial  Laws,  were  interwoven  in  that  Difpenfation,and 
enforced  with  temporal  Promifes  &  Threats ;  yet  taking 
it  in  its  complexNature,  as  aCovenant  tranfaded  between 
God  and  Ifrael,  it  feems  evident  that  it  was  in  its  main 
Intention  a  Covenant  of  Grace  :  For  that  Obfervation  of 
a  judicious  Divine  is  not  to  be  contefted  j  nat  God  did 
not  fine e  the  Fall  of  Man  ever  tranfaEl  with  hi^  in  any  other 
Covenant  but  that  of  Grac£.  And  the  very  Preface  to  the 
ten  Commandments  fpeaks  the  Language  ot  the  Cove- 
nant of  Grace,  in  God's  revealing  and  exhibiting  himfeif 
to  Ifrael  as  the  Lord  their  God,  Exqd.  20.  2.  Can  God 
be  the  God  of  any  of  the  lapfed  Race  o^  Adam  (as  it  im- 
plies peculiar  Favours  from  him,  as  a  divine  and  all-fuffi- 
cient  Benefador^  otherwife  than  in  a  Covenant  ot  Grace 
thro  a  Mediator  ?  And  all  the  Sacrifices  and  Rites  of 
the.  Ceremonial  Law  v,'ere  defigncd  to  aflfift  &dire6i: their 
Faith  to  the  great  Sacrifice  of  Atonement,  in  which  the 
Covenant  hath  its  compleat  &  effedual  Ratification.  But, 
4.  TheCovenant  made  w'lxh Abraham, \n  particular,was 
the  Covenant  of  Grace,  the  fame  for  Subilance  which  is 
made  with  all  the  Faithful  under  thcNew  Teftament,who 
are  the  Chriflian  Seed  of  Abraham,  I  fay,  the  Jame  for 
Subftance,  in  Contradiilindion  from  the  Mode  of  Admi- 
niIlration,and  fomeCircumdances  6^:  Peculiarities  annexed 

to 


Chap.  IV.  ^/ Infant- Baptifm.  219 

to  it,  wherein,  'tis  acknowleged,  there  is  a  Difference. 
But  the  Covenant  made  with  him,  in  the  fubilantial  Te- 
nor of  it,  is  one  and  the  fame  under  the  Chriftian  Difpen- 
fation.  This,  Dr.  Gill,  to  falve  his  Hypothefis,  ftrongly 
denies.  I  {hall  therefore  lay  down  the  Proofs  of  it  ;  and 
afterwards  examine  his  Objedlions.  If  fufficient  Evi- 
dence has  been  given  of  the  foregoing  Propoficion,  that 
the  Covenant  of  Grace  is  eflentially  one  and  the  fame, 
under  both  Adminiftrations,  as  I  truft,  there  has  been ; 
This  may  go  a  great  Way  to  the  Proof  of  the  prefent 
Point.  For  this  is  the  only  Covenant  in  v^hxch  Abraham 
walked  with  God,and  trufted  for  Salvation.  But  if  this 
Covenant  which  God  made  with  him,  was  not  a  Covenant 
of  Grace,  but  raiher  of  Works,  as  Dr.G/7/  im.agines,  then 
Abraham  mud  be  faved  by  a  Covenant  of  Works,  and 
not  by  Faith  in  a  Mediator  ;  which  is  contrary  to  Scrip- 
ture, which  tells  us,  that  by  the  Works  of  the  Law  no  Fkjh 
can  bejujiijied^  Rom.  '^.  20.  And  particularly  of  Abra- 
ham, that  he  was  juftified  by  Faith  •,  as  all  his  believing 
Seed  are  under  [he  Gofpel  ;  that  he  believed  God,  and  it 
was  accounted  to  him  for  Right eoufnefs,  Rom.  4.  3,  &c. 
But  let  me  here  briefly  add  fome  further  Rtafons  and  Ar- 
guments from  Scripture,  that  do  evidently  demonftrate 
the  Covenant  wiihAbraham  to  be  theCovenant  of  Grace, 
of  pure  Grace  (which  Dr.  Gill  deniesj  the  fame  which  is 
in  Force  to  all  Believers  under  the  Gofpel. 

F/ri?,  This  is  evident  from  the  Nature  and  Tenor  of 
God*s  Covenant  wiih  Abraham,3.nd  the  Promifes  made  to 
him,  par[icularly,Gen.  17.  7.  I  will  ejiablijh  my  Covenant 
between  me  and  thee^  and  thy  Seed  after  thee,  in  their  Gene- 
rations, for  an  everlafiing  Covenant,  to  he  aGodunto  thee,and 
thySeed  after  thee.  That  this  could  be  no  other  than  theCo- 
venant of  Grace,is  evident.  For  (i.)  This  is  the  conilant 
Stile  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  I  will  be  a  God  unto  thee^ 
Sec.  God  never  was  a  God  to  any  finful  Man, in  theSenfe 
of  that  Phrafe,  but  in  and  through  Chrift  in  a  Covenant 
of  Grace.  This  is  the  (landing  Fromiie  of  the  Covenant 
under  everyDilpenfaiion^particularly  theNcw-Teftament. 

Heb* 


2  20  A  Bcjcncc  cf  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  IV, 

Heb.8.  lo.  /avV/  he  to  them  a  God,  Sec  — (2.)  This  Pro- 
mife  is  very  comprehenfive,  and  comprizes  all  the  Pro- 
mifes  in  the  Word  of  God,  and  is  greater  than  all :  for 
when  all  the  other  particular  Promifes  fliall  be  a.ccom- 
pli{lied,this  will  remain  to  be  perpetually  in  the  fulfilling, 
as  the  Matter  of  the  Saints  Happinefs  to  Eternity.  Rev. 
21.7.  He  that  over  Cometh  (by  Conibncy,  thro'  all  Temp- 
tations to  the  End)  flmll  inherit  aimin^s^and  I  will  be  his 
Cod.  So  the  heavenly  Reward  is  exprefs'd  ;  and  it  is  eafy 
to  fhew5that  all  the  promifed  BlefTings  of  theCovenant  of 
Grace  are  included  in  this  Promife  to  Abraham  \  tempo- 
ral,rpiriiual  &  eternal  ;  as  it  is  interpreted  in  diversParts 
of  Scripture.  Eet  me,for  a  Specimen,infl:ance  in  a  few 
PafTages  for  thisPurpofe.  To  begin  with  the  loweflKind, 
temporal  Bleffings  \  outward  ProrcvStion,  Provifion  and 
Maintenance.  When  God  renewed  this  Covenant  with 
Jacobs  and  promis'd  to  deal  with  him  according  to  the 
Purport  of  it.  Gen.  28.  13.  14.  Jacob  in  theVow  he  made 
to  God  on  that  Occafion,  put  this  Interpretation  upon  it. 
/.  2 o.  2 1 .  If  God  will  he  with  me^  ^keep  me  in  thisWay  that  I 
gOi  and  will  give  meBread  to  eat^  andHaiment  to  put  on^  fo 
that  I  come  again  to  my  Father'' s  Houfe  in  Peace  ;  thenjloall 
the  Lord  be  my  God.  And  that  fpiritual  Bleffings  are  in- 
cluded, there  needs  no  other  EvidencCj  than  what  the 
-Apoftle  has  taught  and  declared  in  Gal.  3.  Where  he  in- 
terprets the  Blelfing  of  Abraham  to  include,  both  Juftifi  • 
cation  through  theMerit  of  Chrift.  V'.S.  9  'The  Scripture 
foreseeing  that  God  would juftify  the  Heathen  throughFaith., 
preached  before  the  Gofpel  unto  Abraham,  faying^  In  thee 
Jhall  all  Nations  he  hkffed  •,  fo  then^  they  which  be  of  Faith 
are  bleffed  with  faithful  Ahxdhdm.  And  the  Gift  of  the 
Spirit  for  Sandlification.  f,  14.  1'hat  the  Blejfmg  ^/Abra- 
ham might  conle  on  the  Gentiles  through  Jefus  Chriji,  that 
we  might  receive  the  Promife  of  the  Spirit  through  jpaith. 
Which  two  virtually  comprize  all  fpiritualBleffings.  God 
had  promifed  Abraham  a  Seed.,  in  whom  allNations  fliou'd 
be  blelied,  i.  e.  Chrift.,  the  Foundation,  and  meritorious 
Caufcj  the  Procurer,  i^nd  Difpenfcr  of  ail  Bleflednefs  to 

Men* 


Chap.  IV.  <?/ Infant-Baptilm.  221 

Men.     But  the  Blefiing  it  felf,  wherewith  Abraham  Sc  all 
his  believing  Seed  are  blelledjis  contained  in  thisPromire, 
I  zvill  oe  thy  God,  and  the  God  of  thy  Seed.  —  And  eternal 
Liie  and  Blcffednefs  are  included  in  ir,  as  I  have  already 
intimated.  Our  Saviour  proves  the  bkflcd  Immortality, 
and  Reiurredlion  of  the  Patriarchs,from  this  their  Cove- 
nant-Relation  to  God,  from  his  Words  to  Mofes  after  they 
were  dead,  I  am  theGod  of  Abraham^  &c.  aa  he  had  pro- 
linifed  them   when   living.  ikf(3/^.  22.  31,  32.  And  the 
I  the  Apoftle  infers  from  the  fame  Relation,  the  heavenly 
I  Blifs  of  thofeParriarchs,  as  necefTary  to  vindicate  the  Ho- 
nour of  God's  Covenant-Love,  Truth,  and  Faithfulnefs 
in  his  Promifes  to  them,  and  as  a  full  Compenfation  for 
their  Want  of  the  earthly  Caraan.  Heb.  1 1.  16. — Where- 
fore God  is  not  ajJoanid  to  be  called  their  God,  for  he  hath 
^prepared  for  them  a  City.  Therefore  this  was  not  a  meer 
carnal  Covenant,    (as   fome  of  the   Antipasdobaptifbs 
dream)  or  a  Promife  to  give  loAbrahara  and  his  Seed  the 
Land  of  Canaan,  .  and  long  Life,    and  earthly  Bleffings 
therein  :  for  we  fee  plainly  by  the  Apoftle's  Tefcimony, 
that  it  was  a  better  Country  than  C^;2^^;7,that  is,  an  hea- 
venly, which  the  Patriarchs  expe5led,and  God  beftowed 
on  them  by  Virtue  of  this  his  Covenant  and  Promife  of 
being  their  God.    And  fpiritual  and  heavenly  Bleilings 
were  of  principal  Confideration  in  thisCovenant,  accord- 
ing to  the  Explication  the  Scripture  itfelf  gives  of  ir,  as 
\  have  fhev/ed.  Canaan  indeed  was  promJs'd  to  Abraham''^ 
Seed,  as  the  Land  of  their  Flabitation  for  feveral  Genera- 
ions,  uill  the  Coming  of   the  Meffias,  and  as  typical  of 
the  heavenly  Canaan,  and  as  fuch  it  may  be  truly  faidto 
3e  an   everlafhing  PofielTion  -,  but  being  in  itfelf  of  the 
Nature  of  temporal  Goods,    it  is  to  be  confidcr'd  but  as 
an  Additament  to  the  main   Bleffings  :  as  all  temporal 
Viercies  are  in  the  new  Covenant  of  Chriif.  Math.  6.  '^^, 
^ow  one  would  think,  there  fliould  need  no  other  Proof 
:hat  the  Covenant  made  with  Abraham  was  a  Covenant 
>t  Grace,    yea,  and  a  pure   Covenant   of  Grace,    than 
:hat  it  virtuTiy  comprehends  all  the  Privileges  and  Pro- 
mifes 


222         A  Defence  cf  the  Divine  Right         Chap. IV; 

mifes  of  that  Covenant,  both  according  to  the  natural  Im- 
port of  the  Promife,  and  the  Interpretation  of  it  in  other 
Scriptures,  and  that  without  the  Mixture  of  any  Thing,  jj 
ahene  to  it.     Neverthelefs,  let  me  add,  (2.  J  ThisCove-  ' 
nanc  with  Abraham  isi^Wd  an  ever  la  ftingCovenant. Which 
I  have  Ihewed  to  be  the  proper  Chara&r  of  theCovenant 
of  Grace.     The  firft  Covenant  was  foon  broken  and  laid:i 
afide,  as  beiag  of  no  longer  Ufe,  but  to  convince  of  Sin,  f 
and  to  condemn  for  Sin  ;  but  the  Covenant  of  Grace  is 
immutable,  and  indefedible  in  its  Conltitution,  being  e- 
ftablilh'd  in  the  Hand  of  a  Mediator,   and  confirmed  in 
his  Blood.     Hence  called  the  Blood  of  the  everlafling  Co- 
venant. Heb.13.20. —  (4.)Circumcirion,theToken  of  the: 
Covenant  made  with  Abraham.,  was  a  Sign  and  Seal  of  the, 
Righteoufnefs  of  Faith.  Rom.  4.  11.  TheRighteoufnefs  of 
Faith,  here,  in  theApoftle's  Language  andSenfe,  can  in- 
tend no  other  Thing  than  the  Covenant  ot  Grace,  how- 
ever Men  fet  theirWits  on  Work  to  pervert  his  Meaning. 
This  will  appear  if  we  let  the  Apoftie  explain  his  own. 
Words,  as  he  doth  in  this  Epiftle,  and  in  this  Chapter,. 
by  oppofing  the  Righteoufnefs  of  Faith  to  the  Law,and: 
to  the  Righteoufnefs  of  the  Law.  Chap.  4.  13.  T^he  Pro- 
mife— was  not  to  Abraham.,  cr  to  his  Seed^thrcugh  theLaWy 
(i.e.  the  Covenant  of  Works  J  but  through  the  Righteouf- 
nefs of  Faith.  It  is  hence  plain,  that  the  Righteoufnefs  of 
Faith ^  as  it  (lands  here  in  Oppbfition  to  the  Law.,  is  the 
fame  v^ith  the  Righteoufnefs  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace, 
made  over  to  Faith,  as  it  is  oppos'd  to  legal  Righteouf- 
nefs.    Kx\dChap.  10.  5,  6,  9.  the  Apoftie  explains  the 
Righteoufnefs  which  is  of  the  Law.,   and  the  Righteoufnefs, 
which  is  of  Faith.,  in  as  direft  Oppoficion  to  each  other,, 
as  we  can  fuppofe  the  Tenor  of  the  Covenant  of  Works, 
and  that  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace  to  be.     Mofes  (faith' 
he)  defcnbes  the  Right  eon fnefs  which  is  of  the  Law^    that 
the  Man  that  doth  thefc  Tubings  fjall  live  by  them.  But  the. 
Righteoufnefs  which  is  of  Fait  by  fpeaketh  en  this  wife  ^c, 
runs  in  this  Tenor,  If  thou  fhalt  confefs   with  thy  hdouth 
the  Lord  Je'^u^^  andfJ:aU  believe  in  thine  Hearty  that  God 

raifed 


Chap.  IV.  >  of  Infant- Baptlfm."  22 J 

raifed  him  from  the  Dead^  thou  /hah  be  faved.  A  fid  this 
Phrafe,  the  Right eoufnefs  of  Faith ^\^  a  very  apt  &  proper 
Reprefentation  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  both  as  to  the 
Promife  on  God's  Part,and  theCondition  on  ours.  Righ^ 
teoufnefs  conveyed  to  a  Sinner,  is  an  A(5l  of  God's  Grace 
in  the  Promife,  and  Faith  is  the  Condition  on  our  Part, 
whereby  we  receive  that  Righ teoufnefs,  and  obtain 
an  Intereft  in  the  Promife.  I  know  not  how  the 
pure  Covenant  of  Grace  can  be  better  defcrib'd  in  fo 
few  Words,  and  diltinguifhed  from  all  other  Cove- 
nants, Therefore  it  is  evident  that  Circumcifion  was 
not  annexed  to  a  Sort  of  Covenant  of  Works,  as  Dr.  Gill 
groundlefly  fuggefts,  but  to  a  pure  Covenant  of  Grace. 
Such  was  the  Covenant  God  made  with  Abraham  : 
Covenant,  that  confer'd  Righteoufnefs  on  a  finful  Man 
without  legal  Works,'  through  Faith  in  Jefus  Chrift : 
And  Circumcifion  he  appointed  to  be  the  Seal  or  Token 
of  it.  Gen.  17.  11.  And  Abraham  in  receiving  it  (  the 
Apoflle  in  plain  Terms  aflerts  )  received  the  Sign  ^  Seal 
of  the  Righteoufnefs  of  Faith,  Thus  it  appears  with  full 
and  plain  Evidence  from  the  Tenor  of  theCovenant  laid 
down  in  Gen,  ly,  with  the  annexedSeal  of  Circumcifion, 
that  it  was  truly  and  properly  a  Covenant  of  Grace  and 
Salvation  by  Jefus  Chrift  ;  which  might  be  abundantly 
confirmed  by  diverfeotherTeftimonies  of  Scripture.  As, 
Secondly.,  The  Scripture  teftifies,  that  the  Gofpel  was 
preached  to  y^^^r^^^/;?  inGod's  Promife  to  him,/rtj)7;/g-,  In 
thee  (  or  in  thy  Seed  j  i.  e.  in  Communion  with  thee  in 
the  fame  Covenant-Beffings  thro'  Chrift,  or  in  ih^Meffias 
in  Union  and  Fellowftiip  with  him  ( in  either  Senfe  it 
comes  to  the  fame  Efted:)  fhall  all  Nations  be  bleffed.  In 
the  forecited  Gal.  3.8.  Now  the  Gofpel  is  the  pure  Co- 
venant of  Grace,  v/ithout  all  Doubt  -,  this,  God  in  the 
Scriptures  preached  unto  Abraham^  and  he  received  and 
believed  it,  and  was  thereupon  blelTed.  But  what  was 
this  Bleftednefs  ?  In  what  eife  could  it  confift,but  in  this 
Promife,  I  will  he  a  God  unto  thee^  i^c  ?  Which  is  com- 
piehenfive  of  ail  the  Bkilings  we  derive  from  Chrift. 

Thirdlj^ 


2  24  A  Defence  of  the  DivIne.J^ht        Chap.  IV. 

"Thirdly,  The  Scriptures  teilify,  that  Gofpel  Believers 
as  the  Seed  of  Abraham,  and  by  Virtue  ot  their  Union  to 
Chrift,  the  blelfed  Seed  promifed,  are  made  Heirs  of  his 
Covenant.  Gal.  3.29.  If  ye  be  Christ's,  then  areyeAbra.- 
ham's  Seed^and  Heirs  according  to  the  Promife. — The  Pro- 
niife  (  as  it  is  called  by  Way  of  Eminence  )  intends  that 
great  Prornife  of  God  to  Jhahavi,  when  he  enter'd  into 
Covenant  with  him  :  And  to  be  Heirs  according  to  this 
Promife,  is  to  be  Heirs  of  his  Covenant.  And  who  can 
deny,  theCoyenant  which  Believers  are  conftituted  Heirs 
of,  is  the  Covenant  of  Grace  ? 

Fourthly,  The  Scripture  teftiHes,  that  Abraham  was 
juftified  in  the  fame  Way  and  upon  the  fame  I'erms  as 
all  believers  are  now,  under  the  Gofpel  •,  or  rather,  that 
Goipel-Believcrs  are  juftified  after  the  Example  of  nbra- 
ham,^nd  upon  the  fatneTerms  on 'which  he  was  juftified  ; 
who  was  held  forth  as  the  great  Precedent  audExemplar 
of  Juftification  by  Faith,  m  Rom.  4.  Hence  he  is  ftiied 
theFather  of  all  that  believe^  among  the  Gentile  Nations, 
as  well  as  the  Jews :  Which  the  Apoftle  proves  y-,  17. 
from  what  is  written  in  Gen.  17.  /  have  7nade  thee  a  Fa- 
ther of  many  Nations.  Now  the  Rule  or  Inftrument  on 
God's  Parr,  of  the  Juftification  of  a  Sinner  condemned 
by  the  L-avv,  is  no  other,  nor  ever  was  fince  the  Fall  of 
Adamy  than  theCovenant  of  Grace  in  a  Mediator.  Abra* 
^<3;;a  was  juftihed  in  this'Way,  and  in  the  fame  Way  and 
no  other,  mult  every  fintul  Man  or  W^oman,  now  under 
the  Gofpel,  look  ;o  be  juftiried.  Therefore  the  Apoftle 
produces  theExample  01  A br ah am\]\^&.\?iC'3iX.\on, 10  prove 
that  under  the  Gofpel  we  are  to  be  juftified  by  Faith,  in 
Oppofition  to  legal  Works,  which  the  Jews  were  fo  ford 
of.  Rom.  4.  3,  23,  24.  Ah^dh2im  believed  God,  and  it  was 
counted  to  him  for  Right coufnefs.  Now  it  was  not  written 
for  his  Sake  alone.,  that  it  was  imputed  to  him,  but  for  us 
alfo,  to  whom  it  fioall  be  imputed,  if  we  believe  on  him  who 
raifcd  up  Jefus  our  Lord  from  the  Dead.  Since  therefore 
Believers  now  have  Communion  with  Abraham  in  this 
great  Covenant- Privileoe  ofjuftification  -,  for  they  which 

bs 


Chap.  IV.  cf  Infant-Baptifm.  22 


he  of  Feitlh  (  faith  the  Apodle  )  are  b/ejfed  zcith  faitkfid 
Abraham  :  It  undeniably  follows,  that  the  lame  Cove- 
nant of  Grace,in  and  by  which  thisPriviiedgc  is  convey- 
ed and  appHed,  may  be  traiy  afiirmed  to  belong  equally 
to  him  and  them. 

Fifthly^  The  Scripture  tefl:ifies,that  thcCo-jenaitt  made 
with  Abraham  was  confirmed  of  God  in  CbrisJ,  Gal.  3.17. 
But  no  Covenant  that  God  ever  made  with  Man  fmce  the 
Fall,  was  confirmed  in  Chrifi^  but  the  Covenant  of  Grace.  , 

Sixthly^  it  alfo  tediiies,  that  the  Covenant  with  Abra- 
ham  could  not  be  difannul'd  by  the  L^a'5which  was  given 
43oYears  after,  (ibid.)  If  this  Co^^enant  were  not  annul'd 
and  fuperfeded  by  the  Law,  afterwards  given  \  if  it  con- 
tinued in  Force  during  that  whole  fubfervient  Difpenfa- 
tion  of  the  Law  of  Mcfes^  'till  theComing  of  the  promif- 
ed  Seed,  and  the  Beginning  of  theGofjjel-jr'eriod,  we  may 
be  fure  that  it  is  not  difannuTd  by  the  Gofpel,  v;hich  is 
a  compleater  and  tairer  Edition  &  Promulgation  of  the 
fame  Covenant,  and  the  Inftrument  of  conveying  the 
BlefTings  of  it  to  all  Nations. 

But  I  think  there  has  been  Evidence  more  than  fufH- 
cient  already  ofter'd,  in  Confirmation  of  this  Propofirion. 
'Tis  granted,  there  were  fome  Favours  promifed  by  God 
to  Abraham  peculiar  to  him, as  he  was  appointed  to  be  the 
grandPatriarch  of  thejewifn  and  Chriitian  Church  ;  fuch 
as  the  Promife  of  the  Multiplication  of  his  Seed  as  the 
Stars  of  Heaven,  of  a  Race  of  Kings  that  Ihould  defccnd 
from  him,  and  that  he  fnould  be  the  Father  of  many  Na- 
tions, and  particularly,  and  em.inently,  the  Progenitor  of 
the  MefTias  :  yet  ail  this  makes  no  fubdantial  Alteration 
in  the  Covenant  it  felf,  as  it  was  ordain'd  to  pafs  down  to 
Kis  Children  and  Heirs  ;  any  more  than,  fuppofing  one 
who  had  the  Honour  of  being  the  firftin  anyAdminiflra- 
tion,  fliou'd  have  fome  fignalMarks  of  Refpe6t  put  upon 
him,  or  fome  peculiarPrivilege  vouchfafed  him, that  this 
fhould  make  any  real  DiiTerence  in  theAdminiitration  ic 
felf,  with  Refpecl  to  his  Succeffors  in  it.  What  was  per- 
fonal  and  peculiar  to  Abraham  comes  not  into  Confide- 

Q^  ratioi> 


2  25  A  Defence  of  the  Divme  Right        Chap.  IV. 

ration  of  the  Covenant  of  God  with  him,  which  was  en- 
tail'd  on  his  Seed  and  him,  and  this  was  purely  a  Cove- 
nant of  Grace. 

5.  T'he  Infant-Children  of  confederate  Parents  are  ad- 
mitted by  God,  together  with  their  Farents,into  the  Co- 
venant, under  theNew-Teftamjent  Adminiltration.  This 
our  Adverfaries,  in  the  Caufe  of  Infant- Baptifm,  ftiffly 
deny  j  but  it  fhall  be  prov'd  from  Scripture.     For, 

Firft^  It  is  a  necelTary  Confequence  of  the  two  forego- 
ing Proportions,  which  have  been  abundantly  confirmed 
by  Scripture, 'z;/2;.  That  the  Covenant  of  Grace  has  been 
always  efientiaily  the  fame  from  the  Beginning,  under 
the  feveral  Adminiftrations,  and  in  particular,  that  the 
Abrahamitical  Covenant  is  one  &  the  fame  Covenant  of 
Grace,  into  which  allBelievers  under  theNew  -Teilamenc 
are  admitted  Federates  with  God.  And  it  has  been  evi- 
dent trom  plain  Teflimony  of  Scripture,  that  the  natu- 
ral Seed  of  Abraham  were  taken  into  his  Covenant,  and 
the  natural  Seed  of  the  Ifraelites  were  taken  into  theCo- 
venant  under  the  Mofaical  Adminiftration,  and  that  in 
their  Iniant-Age  -,  and  that  in  every  Covenant  God  has 
madev/ith  Man, Children  have  been  included.  But  if  the 
Infant-Children  of  GofpelBelievers  be  now  fhut  out  of  the 
Covenant,  and  debar'd  o\  all  Interelt  in  ir,  then  it  is  not 
the  fame  Covenant,  but  there  is  a  Change  in  the  fubflan- 
tial  Tenor  of  it,  and  a  Change  for  the  worfe.  SinceGod's 
Covenant  and  Promife  to  Abraham  and  the  Ifraelites  ^"Sls^ 
1  ijinll  be  a  God  to  thee^  and  to  thy  Seed  ;  if  it  be  now  to 
Believers,  I  will  be  a  Gcd  to  thee^  but  not  to  thy  Seed,  is 
not  this,  a  very  great  and  manifeft  Alteration,  and  that 
much  to  the  Diladvantage  of  Gofpel-Believers  and  their 
Children  ?  "  it  a  Man  have  aDeedof  Gift  of  Houfe  and 
«'  Land  to  himkU,  and  his  Heirs  forever,  and  if  the  Do- 
"  nor  fhould  recall  and  vacate  the  firfc  Deed,  and  leave 
"  out  his  Heirs  in  the  fecond,  were  it  not  an  eilentialDif- 
**  tercnce  ?  And  the  latter  a  lefsFavour  than  the  former.'* 
In  like  Manner,  if  God's  Covenant  &  Promife  extended 
to  the  Children  of  the  Churcli  under  thcOid-Teflamenr, 

and 


Chap.  IV.  of  Infant-Baptlfm.  227 

and  be  limited  to  thePerfons  of  Believers  under  theNew, 
then  it  is  manitefl  that  there  is  an  eiTeutial  Difference  be- 
tween the  Covenants  under  thofe  difrerenc  Adminiftrati- 
ons,  (the  contrary  to  Vv'hich  has  been  provYl)  and  then  it 
will  foUov/  that  not  theNew  Covenant,  but  the  Old  is  in 
this  Particular  the  better  Covenant, 

Secondly y  Since  the  little  Children  of  confederate  Pa- 
rents were  once  admitted  by  God  as  Federates  in  his  Co- 
venant, under  the  former  Difpenfations  of  it,they  are  ftill 
accounted  by  God  and  ought  to  be  acknowledg'd  by  us 
as  Federates  in  the  new  Covenant,  unlefs  there  be  any 
goodGrounds  or  Reafons  for  their  Exclufion.  For  a  Pri- 
vilege once  granted  to  theChurch,niufL  continue  through 
all  Ages,  unlefs  the  almighty  Donor  is  pleas'd  to  revoke 
it.  And  that  the  Covenant-Intereft  of  the  natural  Seed 
of  the  Faithful  is  a  Privilege,  no  Man  can  deny,  and  an 
ineftimablePrivilege  -,  as  they  are  thereby  enroii'd  in  the 
Number  of  God's  fealed,  diftinguiili'dPeople,  entitled  to 
fpecial  Mercies,  fpecial  Favours  of  Providence,  fpecial 
Ordinances  and  Privileges  in  the  viable  Church.  How 
eife  could  Circumcifion  be  of  much  Advantage  to  the 
Jews  ?  Much  every  Way^  as  rhe  Apoftie  declares,  Rom, 
3.  I,  2.  David  accounts  it  aPriviiege,  and  pleads  it  with 
God.  Pfal.  86.  16.  Save  the  Son  of  thine  Handmaid.  And 
improves  it  as  an  Engagement  upon  him  to  be  God's 
Servant.  Pfal.  116.  16.  I  ara  thy  Servant.^  the  Son  of  thins 
Handmaid^bQ]Dg  his  Servant  born.  And  if  fjch  Children 
die  in  the  State  of  Infancy,  this  their  Covenant-Intereil 
and  Relation  to  God  is  a  Ground  of  Hope  concerning 
their  Well-being  in  a  future  State.  If  it  was  an  Argu- 
ment (as  ourSaviour  improves  it)  of  the  blefled  State  of 
the  Patriarchs  after  Death,  that  God  was  their  God,  why 
fhould  not  the  fame  Argument  from  the  Promife,  /  v:;ill 
he  the  God  of  thy  Seed,  be  admiitted  in  the  Cafe  of  Infants, 
or  fuch  Children  of  confederate  Parents  as  die  young,  be- 
fore they  could  do  any  Thing  to  difinherit  themfclves  of 
the  BlelTing  oi  that  Relation  ^  Now  if  this  be  a  Privilege, 
Favoresfunt  ampliandi.  Privileges  are  to  be  interpreted  in 

Q^  2  the 


i  2  8  A  'Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Ch  a  P.  IV. 

the  fulled  Extent,  where  the  Donor  has  made  no  Excep- 
tion orLiirjitation,to  reflrain  them.  But  in  the  picfent 
Cafe  there  is  noException  with  Refpedl  to  theCovenant- 
Iniereft  ot  tie  Children  of  vifible  Believers  under  the 
Gofpel,  nor  any  Grounds  or  Rcafons  lor  theirExclufion. 
For^i.)it  is  evidcnt,thatGod  whois  fovereignLord  of  his 
ov/n  Favours,  to  whom  it  belongs  to  admit  into,  or  ex- 
clude from  the  Covenant,whom  hepleafcs,  has  all  along 
from  the  Beginning  ot  the  World, at  leafl:  from  theDays 
of  Abraham  to  the  Coming  of  Chrifl,  receiv'd  the  Infants 
of  the  Church  as  Federates  together  with  their  Parents, 
and  has  not  given  the  leafl:  Intin-iation  that  it  was  ever  his 
Defign  to  exclude  them.  Nor  is  there  one  Text  in  the 
Bible,  whence  it  may  be  gather'd,  either  exprefly,  or  by 
Confequence,  that  it  is  the  Will  of  God  that  the  Chil- 
dren of  the  Chriiiian  Church  Ihould  be  disiranchis'd  or 
cut  off  from  that  ancient  Privilege.  Nor  (2  )  has  Jefus 
Chrift  fincehis  Ccming,by  any  Dodrine  or  Inftitution  of 
his  debar'd  the  Children  of  vilible  Believers  from  a  Co- 
venant-Intereft ;  but  has  confirmed  them  in  thePofiefHon 
of  their  ancientRight  (as  we  fliall  fee.)His  taking  up  fuch 
young  Children  in  his  Arms,  and  putting  his  irJands  on 
them,  and  biei]-!ng  them,  as  the  Evangeiifts  declare,  a- 
mounts  to  a  vinual  Declaration  of  theirCovenantlntereft. 
>Jor  (3.)  is  there  anyl^hing  in  theNature  &  Conflitutio.i 
of  the  Gofpei-Covenant,  that  doth  exclude  them  ;  But 
fupporing,what  has  been  already  prov'd,  that  the  Cove- 
fjant  is  ftill  eiTentially  the  fame,  it  muft  necefTarily  com- 
prehend them.  And  in  Regard  of  its  Adminidration, 
the  Scripture  reprefents  the  Chriftian  Ceconomy,  as  per- 
fc6tive  of  the  Jewiilijand  the  moft  compleat  Accomplifli- 
ment  of  it  •,  and  the  new  Covenant  ot  the  Gofpel,  as  a 
better,  more  excellent, and  perfeft  Covenant,than  the  for- 
mer under  theOLl-Tcftanient.//t'i'.7.22.  &  8.6.  Which  it 
cannot  be,unlefs  it  ccntain'd  all  the  real  Privileges  of  the 
former,  together  with  feme  additioralAdvantakes.  And 
therefore  ii  the  Covenant  Interefl;  of  the  Children  of  con- 
federate Parents  was   a  real  Privilege  under  the  former 

(as 


Chap.  IV.  of  Lifanr-Baptirm.^  229 

(as  I  have  proved)  it  is  rational  to  conclude,  that  Privi- 
lege muft  be  retained  and  coniirm'd  under  the  more  per- 
fect Difpenfation  of  the  Gofpel.  Nor  (4.)  is  there  any 
Reafon  from  the  Incapacity  of  theChildren,  whofeRighc 
is  pleaded  for,  that  can  exclude  them.  For  none  can 
pretend,  but  that  the  Infanr-Children  of  the  Chriilian 
Church  are  equally  capable  of  the  Covenanr,theBleirings, 
and  the  initiating  Seal  of  it»  with  the  Children  of  the 
Jewifh  Church:  whatever  can  with  any  Pretence  be  ob- 
jecled  againit  the  former,  as  want  of  Underftanding,  or 
of  Ability  to  chufe  for  themfelves,  and  the  like,  holds 
fully  as  ftrong  againft  the  latter.  Therefore  fince  it  is 
undeniable  that  God  has  of  old  receiv'd  the  Infant-Seed 
of  the  Faithful  into  his  Covenant,  and  has  never  fmce, 
either  diredlly  or  confequentially,  debarred  or  cut  them 
off  from  this  Privilege  j  nor  can  any  Caufe  be  affign'd, 
why  they  ought  to  be  debarred  ;  we  have  Reafon  to  con- 
plude,  that  it  is  his  Will  that  we  fhould  fl:ill  reckon  the 
little  Children  of  Believers  as  his  Federates  under  the 
New-Teftament.  But, 

Thirdly^  We  have  more  pofitive  Evidence  from 
Scripture,  that,  particularly,  God's  Covenant  &  Promife 
to  Abraham  and  his  Seed  continues  in  the  fameTenor  and 
Extent  to  Believers  and  their  Seed,  under  the  Gofpel  ; 
the  Promife  of  his  being  a  God  to  him  and  his  Seed  after 
him.  It  is  not  denied,  becaufe  it  is  plainly  afierted  in 
Scriptur'e,  that  Believers  in  Chrift,  of  Gentiles  as  well  as 
Jews^  were  intended  by  God  as  the  Seed  of  Abraham  : 
Some  call  them  his  fpiritual  Seed  j  I  choofe  to  call  them 
his  adopted  Seed, in  the  Room  of  his  natural  Seed, which 
were  broken  off  by  Unbelief  •,  Believers  being  more  pro- 
perly the  fpiritual  S^^d  of  Chrijl.  But  (not  toftandupon 
the  Appellation  j  it  is  pretended, that  as  Believers  are  the 
Seed  of  Abraham,  the  Covenant  and  Promife  belongs  to 
them  perfonally  confidered,  not  to  them  and  their  Seed 
too  :  This,  it  is  furmis'd,  was  a  Privilege  peculiar  to  A- 
hraham^?.s  he  was  the  Father  of  the  Faithfui,but  that  the 
Pcomifc  hath  not  the  fame  Extent  to  his  believing  Seed. 

Q.  3  There- 


230  A  Befence  of  the  Livtne  Right         Chap.  IV. 

Therefore  I  fhall  endeavour  to  fliew  the  Vanity  of  this 
Pretence,  and  to  prove  the  contrary,  by  alledging  a  few 
Paffages  of  Scripture,  that  are  plain  to  this  Purpofe. 

(i.)  The  Apoflle  has  plainly  declar'd,  that/i?^  tilejpjig 
cf  yibraham  is  corns  en  the  Gentiles  through  Jefus  Chrijt^ 
Gal.  3.  14. —  The  Blefling  of  /ibraham  doubtlefs  con- 
lifts  in  God's  Promife  of  being  a  God  to  him  and  his 
Stti^  ;  which  is  the  Sum  of  a>iiBleirings  which  we  can  de- 
fire,  and  which  we  have  in  and  from  Chrift,  who  is  that 
promifed  Seed,?;?  z^hom  all  Nations  fhould  be  biefied  with 
Jbrahain's  BlefTing,  as  he  is  the  Author,  Repofuoryjand 
Difpenfer  of  all  divine  Bleffings  to  Men.  This  was  none 
of  the  Peculiarities  of  the  Covenant  of  Abraham^  or  of 
the  Favours  and  Honours  appropriated  to  him  in  God's 
federal  Tranfadions  with  him  •,  but  belongs  to  the  fub- 
ilantial  Tenor  of  the  Covenant  through  ail  Generations, 
as  has  been  manifefted.  And  therefore,  if  theCovenant 
and  Promife  of  God  extends  not  to  the  little  Children  • 
of  believing  Gentiles,  then  the  Blefling  of  Abraham  \^ 
not  come  on  the  Gentiles  in  the  full  Extent  of  it,but  they 
are  cut  off  from  a  great  Part  of  his  BlefTing.  For  the 
BlefTing  of  Abraham  is  not  only  that  wherewith  he  was 
blefTed  in  his  own  Perlbn,  but  the  BlefTing  of  his  Seed 
and  Family  alfo.  It  was  promis'd  to  him  (and  it  was  the 
iirfl  Promife  we  read  of,  that  God  made  to  him  after  his 
Calling)  Gen.  12.^.— In  thee /hall  allFamilies  of  theEarth 
he  blefjed  (i.e.  In  thy  Seed.,  as  it  is  afterwards  explain'd, 
and  in  Communion  wiih  thee  in  the  fame  Covenant- 
Blcflingf,;  which  is  a  plain  Intimation,thattheBlefTing  of 
Abraham  was  defign'd  to  be  not  a  meer  perfonal,  but  a 
Family-BlefTing,  that  all  believing  Gentiles  fliould  be 
biefied  in  him,  after  the  Example  of  God's  blefling  him 
and  his  Family,  that  the  Gofpel-Difpenfation  of  this 
BlefTing  fhould  extend  to  the  Families  and  Children  of 
Believers.  Therefore  Chrift  faid  to  Zaccheus  upon  his 
Profeffion  of  Repentance  and  Faith,  Luk.  19.  9.  This 
Day  is  Salvation  ccvde  to  this  Hcufe  :  and  gives  this  Rea- 
fon,  forfomuch  as  he^  alfo  is  a  Son  ^/Alraham  ♦,  and 

being 


Chap.  IV.  <?/ Infant-Baptifm,  231 

being  a  Son  of  Abraham^znA  Heir  of  his  Covenant  in  the 
Gofpel  -Senfe,  thro'  Faith  in  Chriit,  the  Bicfiing  of  Sal- 
vation is  extended  by  Chrift  to  him  and  his  Houihoid. 
In  the  fame  Extent,  the  Apoftle  offers  this  BlelTing  of 
Abraham  to  the  Jailor  at  Philippic  Ad:.  16.3 1.  Believe  on 
the  Lord  Jefiis  Chrift ^and  ihou /halt  be faved^and  thyHoufe, 
Thus  we  have  good  Evidence,  that  theBlelTingof  yfir^- 
ham^  according  to  the  Extent  of  God's  Promife  to  him 
and  to  his  Seed,  comes  upon  the  Gentiles  thro'  Faith  in 
Chrift. 

(2.)  Another  PalTage  in  Confirmation  of  this  occurs 
in  the  fame  Chapter,  Gal.  3.  29.  If  ye  be  Chrift'  s^then  ars 
ye  Auraham^^  Seed^and  Heirs  according  to  the  Promife,  I'hs 
Apoftle  here  declares,  that  all  Chrittians,of  whateverNa- 
tion,  Jew  or  Gr^^^,of  whareverCondition,or  Sex,  (>^2  8.) 
being  one  in  Chriii  Jefus^  are  the  true  Seed  of  Abraham^ 
under  the  Gofpel,  and  Heirs  of  his  Covenant,  accord- 
ing to  the  true  Purport  &  Meaning  of  the  Promife,  What 
Promife  can  he  mean,  but  thzt, I  will  be  a  God  to  /to,and 
to  thySeed  ?  'Tis  a  grandMiftake,(&'tis  the  leadingError 
of  the  Antipsedobaptifts)  to  think,  that  the  Covenant  and 
Promife  in  this  Extent  was  peculiar  to  Abraham  as  the 
Father  of  the  Faithful,  but  that  it  extended  no  farther 
than  to  the  Perfons  of  his  Seed  :  whereas  it  was  evident- 
ly the  Deiign  of  God  in  the  firft  Conftitution  of  this  Co- 
venant,to  keep  up  a  Church- Seed,  in  the  Line  of  Abra-^ 
bam,  from  Generation  to  Generation,  even  in  the  natural 
Generations  of  his  Seed.  And  Provifion  was  made  ac 
the  fame  Time  for  thexldmifTion  of  Gentile  Strangers  in- 
to the  fameCovenant,  and  to  the  fame  Church-Privileges 
in  the  Covenant  with  his  natural  Seed.  —  Any  Stranger 
(faith  God)  who  is  not  of  thy  Seed,  Gen.  17.12.  (See  alfo 
Exod. 12.4.3,4.^.)  So  that  every  Jewifh  Parent,andevery 
profelyted  Gentile  Parent,  had  this  Privilege,  of  having 
the  Covenant  &  Promife  extended  &  feal'd  to  theirSeed, 
till  the  Coming  of  Chrift,and  the  letting  up  theAdmini- 
ftration  of  theNew-Covenant;  in  which  there  vvasnoAlte- 
ration  made  as  to  the  federateParties^but  theJews&Pro- 

0^4  felyces 


2^2         A  'Defence  cf  the  Lrjwe  Right        Chap. IV. 

lelytcsjwbo  came  under  this  new  Adminiftration,  by  be- 
lieving in  Chrift,  and  receiving  Chrillian  Baptifm,  had 
the  iame  Privilege  of  the  Covenant-Intereil  ot  their  Seed 
continued  to  them,  that  they  had  ever  enjoyed  -,  and  the 
fame  had  been  continued  to  all  the  reft  to  this  Day,  had 
they  not  been  broken  off  thro'  Unbelief,  as  will  appear 
irom  the  next  Pafiage  I  lliall  cite. 

(?.)  Another  Teilimcny,  to  prove  the  Extent  of  the 
Covenant  ot  Abraham  to  the  natural  Seed  of  Goipel-Be- 
lievers,  are  the  Words  of  the  Apcftle  Peter^  du'edcd  to 
Jews  &  Profelytes  at  Jerufakm^  at  the  Commencemenc 
of  this  new  Adminiftration  of  the  Covenant,  which  was 
then  confirmed  by  the  Doclrine,  Death  &  Sacrifice,  P^-e- 
furreCtion  &  Afcenfion  of  Chrift,  and  the  pouring  out  of 
the  Spirit  in  his  extraordinary  Gifts  on  the  Apoitles,and 
a  full  Period  was  put  to  the  Old-Teflament- Adminiftra- 
tion :  he  exhorts  them  (A5f.2.Q,^.)  to  repent  and  believe 
inChrift,  and  to  receive  the  initiating  Token  of  the  New- 
Covenant,  in  being  baptized  in  his  Name  -,  and  enforces 
his  Exhortation  by  this  Argument,  y-.  Q^().Fcr  thepromije 
is  unto  you  and  to  y cur  Children^mtd  to  all  that  are  afar  off^ 
even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  Godfoallcdll.  Whence  it  is 
apparent,  that  the  Promife  fby  v/hlch  God's  Covenant 
with  his  People  is  exprefted)  which  had  been  all  along  to 
confederate  Parents  in  the  01d-Teft::ment-Church,  and 
their  natural  Children,  is  adopted  into  this  new  Difpenfa  • 
tion  of  Chrift.  What  Dr.  Gill  has  to  objed  againft  this 
PalTage,  fhall  be  conlidered  and  examined  more  largely 
hcreatie;.  In  the  mean  Time,  let  me  fhew,  that  thePro- 
mife  here  referred  to  by  the  Apoftle,  is  that  great  Pro- 
mUe  of  God  to  /ihraharn^  o{  tlefjwg  ail  Nations  in  his  Seed ^ 
and  of  being  a  God  unto  him  and  to  his  Seed  ;  and  not  thai 
Promife  in  JceU  cued  f.  16,  ly.  as  our  Adverfaries  con- 
tend. For  ( I )  The  Promife  ot  God  to  Abraham  was  the 
iTioft  known,  eminent  and  remarkable  Promife,  funda- 
mental to  theJewilhChurch-State,which  fee u red  all  their 
PiiviL-ges  as  the  peculiar  People  of  God, and  which  they 
were  f  J  prone  to  glory  in,  as  the  Seed  ot  Abraham^  and 

is 


Chap.  IV.  cf  Infant- Baptifm.  233 

is  therefore  often,  eminently  and  emphatically  fliled  the 
Prornife^  without  anyAddition,  as  it  is  here,  and  in  many 
Places  cited  in  the  Dialogue^  Pa.  37,  and  eifewhere. 
I'herefore  thefe  Words  being  fpoken  to  the  Jev/s,  they 
could  underfrand  by  the  Promife  here,no  other  than  that 
noted  and  moft  illulirious  Promife  made  to  ^braha?n^ih^ 
great  Patriarch  of  their  Nation.  (2)  The  Apoftle  may 
juftly  be  fuppofed  to  take  the  Promife  of  God  to  Abra- 
ham for  his  Ground  and  Warrant  in  Preaching  theNew- 
Cpvenantjinthe  fame  Extent  to  htYitvmgJews  ^Gentiks^ 
and  their  Children  ;  for  they  both  run  in  the  fameTenor. 
The  Promife  of  God  to  Abraham  was  not  only  to  him 
and  his  natural  Sztd^  but  to  the  Stranger  that  was  not  of 
his  Seed^v/ho  fhould  be  ioin'd  in  his  Covenant,  i.e.  to  the 
profelytedGentiiesjCG't'/?.  i  j.y ^12. Excd.  1 2,48,49.Xo  here 
the  Prom'le  is  to  the  Jews  &  their  Seed,  and  to  the  cal- 
led Gentiles.  (3  j  The  Promife  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  was 
to  be  received  alter  Baptifm.  Repent  and  be  baptized  — • 
and  ye  Jhall  receive  the  Gift  of  the  Holy  GhoJ}^  f.  o^'^.  But 
the  Promife  here  referred  to,  was  propounded  as  a  Mo- 
tive and  Obliofation  to  them  to  fubmic  to  the  Chriilian 
Difpenfiition,  by  being  baptized  in  the  Name  of  Jefus 
Chrifti  and  as  that  which  belong'd  to  them,  previous  to 
Chriftian  Baptifm  ;  which  is  grounded  on  and  annexed 
only  to  the  Dodtrines  and  Promifes  of  theNew- Covenant, 
and  not  to  the  extraordinaryGitts  of  theSpirit.  (4)  The 
Prophecy  in  Jcel^  as  it  is  underftood  of  ihe  extraordinary 
Gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  the  Apoftle  had  told  them  was 
fulfilled  in  the  miraculous  Effuiion  of  the  Spirit  on  all 
the  Apoftles,  f.  16,  17.  But  we  read  of  no  fuch  extra- 
ordinary Gifts  poured  out  upon  thefe  Convert?,to  whom 
Pete^  preached  ;  but  only  the  ordinary  fanclifyinglnflu- 
ences  and  Graces  of  the  Spirit :  and  therefore  it  is  ratio- 
nal to  conclude,  he  did  not  intend  that  Promife  in  Joel. 
Or  if  the  ordinary  Gifts  and  Graces  of  the  Spirit  be  un- 
derfto  d  in  the  Prophecy  cited  out  of  7^^/,thefe  are  com- 
prized in  the  Bleffing  of  Mraham^  as  ir  is  interpreted  to 
include,  eminently,  the  Promife  of  the  Spirit^  Gal.  3.  14. 

And 


234  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.  IV. 

And  this  is  fuch  a  Promile,  as  the  Infants  of  the  Church 
are  capable  of  •,    and  fuch  a  Promife  is  made  to  them. 
Ifai.  44.  g.   /  will  pour  my  Spirit  upon  thy  Seed,   and  my 
Bleffing  upon  thine  Offspring.     (5O  The  Promife  here  re- 
ferred to  extends    to  all  Jews  and  Gentiles  called  by  the 
Gofpel,  without  Limitation  to  Nation,  Place,  or  Time  ; 
to  the  Jews  and  their  Children,   and  in  like  Manner  to 
the  Gentiles  called  into  a   Church- State,  thenceforward 
during  theGofpel-Difpenfation  to  the  End  of  the  World. 
But  how  unreafonable  is  it  to  fuppofe,that  all  theChriitia- 
nized  Jews^  and  all  the  called  Gentile.^,  were  then  Parta- 
kers of  the  extraordinai*y  Gifts  of  theSpirit  ?  Since  thefe 
were   bellowed  comparatively  but  on  few,    io  Refpedt 
of  the  Multitudes  that  believed  ^  And  how  much  more 
unreafonable  and  abfurd  is  it,  to  imagine  this  of  all  Be- 
lievers fince  that  Time,  ior  thefe  many  Hundred  Years 
fince  thofe  extraordinaryGifts  ceafed  in  the  Church  ^  For 
the  Promife  here  propounded  by  the  Apoflle,  belongs  to 
thofe  that  are  called  in  ail  Ages  without  Lin'Jiatiori  fto 
us  in  America,  as  well  as  the  ancient  Jews)   during  the 
Gofpel-Difpenfation,  as  a  Reafon  &  Inducement  * o  fub- 
mit  to  the  Terms  of  it.     (6.)  The  Promife  is  explained 
in  the  next  Chapter  by  the  fame  Apoftle,  to  intend  the 
Promife  madeto  y/^r^/A-^/y^which  he  improves  in  prelTing 
the  fameExhortation  on  \htJews.Kdi.Q,.2^^26.2^e  are  the 
Children  of  theCovenant^which  God  made  with  our  Fathers, 
faying  unto  Abraham,  And  in  thy  Seed  fhall  all  the  Kindred 
of  the  Earth  he  hkfjed.    Unto  you,  fir§f,  God  having  raifed 
up  his  Son  Jefis,  jcnt  him.  to  blefsyouficz.     OtherReafons 
might  be  added,  but  thefe  are  fufRcient  to  demonilrate 
plainly,  that  the  Promife  mentioned,  /.39.  could  not  be 
that  in  Joel,  as  interpreted  by  the  ApoRle,  of  the  extra- 
ordinary and  miraculous  Gifrs  of  theSpiric,poured  forth 
on  the  Day  of  Pentecoft  •,  but  that  fundamental  Handing 
Promife  of  God  to  /shraham,   and  to  his  Seed  for  ever. 
And  confequenciy,  that  God's  Covenant- Promiie  to  him 
belongs,  in  its  full  Exti:nt,toChriiliah  Parents,  and  their 
Seed. 

(4.)  The 


Chap.  IV.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  235 

(4.)  The  next  PafTage  of  Scripture,  that  gives  full  E- 
vidence  to  the  Truth  pleaded  for,  is  that  of  the  Apoftle 
Paul^  Rom.  11.  from  >\  16^  to  24  inclufively.  If  theRoct 
he  bcl)\  fo  are  the  Branches  :  And  if  fome  of  the  Branches 
be  broken  off^  and  thou  being  a  wildOlive-Tree.,wert graffed 
in  amotg  them^  and  with  them  partakejl  of  the  Root^  and 
Fdtnejs  of  the  Olive -Tree^  &c.  ThtOiive-lree  in  this  Al- 
legory of  the  Apo(lle,can  be  applied  to  nothing  elle,with 
any  Propriety,  thnn  the  Church  of  Jfrael  \  (Jer,  ri. 
16.  ^he  Lord  called  thy  Name  a  green  Olive ^  fair  and  of 
gcodlyFruit — )  The  Root  whereof  was  theCovenant  with 
Abraham^  IfaaCy  and  Jacobs  which  v/as  the  Root  of  all 
the  vifible  Churcli- Privileges  of  the  Jezvs^  fignified  by 
theFatnefs  of  theOiive-Tree;  oneof  the  principal  whereof 
was  theCovenant  Incereft  of  their  Seed,with  the  annexed 
Seal,  whereby  they  were  conftituted  Members  of  the 
Church  of  Ifrael.  The  Jews  were  the  natural  BrancheSy 
many  of  whom  were  broken  off  becaufe  of  Unbelief ..f.  20. 
The  Gentile  Churches  v^txtBranches  of  a  wildOlive-TreCy 
thro'  Faith  in  Chrift  grafted  into  the  good  Oiive-Tree, 
i;^r.2i,24.  And  being  grafkd  in  among  the  believing 
Jews,  -partook  with  them  of  the  Root  and  Fatnefs,  of  the 
Olive-Tree  ,  that  is,  had  Communion  with  them  in  the 
Root  o{  Abraha'Ajh  Covenant,  and  in  the  Privileges  and 
Bleffings  derived  thence.  So  the  Gentiles  come  to  be 
Fellow-Heirs  with  the  Jews,  and  Partakers  of  the  fame 
Promifein  Chrift  by  the  Gofpel.  Eph.3.6.  Whence  it  un- 
deniably follows, that  under  the  Gofpel-Difpenfation  the 
Seed  of  Believers  hav&  as  good  a  Title  to  the  Covenant 
and  Seal  of  it  too,  as  ever  the  Sqq(\  of  the  JewiihChurch 
had,  by  virtue  of  God's  firfb  Infiirution  ot  his  Covenant 
with  the  Patriarchs  of  that  Church. 

(5.)  1  fhall  add  but  one  m.ore  Tedimony  to  this  Pur- 
pofe,  which,  if  rightly  explained,  I  apprehend  to  be  an 
Evidence  of  equal  Light  and  Force,wi[h  the  foregoing  : 
Ir  is  in  the  fame  Epillle  to  thei^^;/?<??;.f,Chap.i  5.8,9, &:c. 
Now  J  fay  ^th  at  Jefus  Chrift  was  a  Minifter  of  theC^rcun^' 
cif.on  for  the  Truth  of  God ^  to  confirm  the  Promifes  made 

unto 


2^6  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         C h a p ,  I V. 

unto  the  Fathers  •,  and  that  the  Gentiles  might  glorify  God 
for  his  Mercy y  ^c.  The  Fathers  to  whom  the  Prom-ifes 
were  made,  were  Abraham^  Ifaac^  and  Jacobs  the  chief 
Fathers  ot  the  Jewiih  Church.  And  what  were  thePro- 
mifes  made  to  them,  but  thofe  mod  noted  and  compre- 
henfive  ones,  of  BkJJing  all  Nations  in  their  Seed,  and  of 
i^eing  a-Gcd  to  them,  and  to  their  Seed?  Thefe  Chrifl  has 
confirmed,  firfl  to  the  Jews,  fas  he  was  a  Miniver  of  the 
Circumcifion,  i.e.  of  the  Jewi(liChurch,to  which  he  chiefly 
coniin'd  his  perfonal  Miniflry)  and  afterwards  to  \kitGen- 
tiles,  by  the  preaching  of  hisApoftles  ;  that  the  Gentiles, 
together  with  the  Jews,  might  glorify  God  for  the  fame 
Mercy,  the  BlefHng  oi  Abraham  being  come  upon  them, 
according  to  the  Tenor  of  thofe  Promifes.  But  now,  if 
the  Infant- Seed  of  Belie vers,i:nder  theGofpel-ildminiftra- 
tion,  be  cut  off  from  theirShare  in  the  Covenant  andPro- 
mife,  then  Chrift  has  not  confirm'd  the  Promifes  made  to 
theFathers,  untoNew-Teftament-Behevers,but  extream- 
ly  diminifh'd  them.  But  the  Apoflle  plainly  teftifies  the 
contrary,  that  he  has  confirm'd  them,  and  this  by  his 
Death  and  Refurredtion,  and  by  the  pouring  out  of  the 
Spirit,  by  hisGofpel-Dodrine  andlnttitution,  by  adopt- 
ing them  into  his  new  Covenant,  as  the  principalMattcr 
of  it,  and  appointing  Baptifm  and  the  Sacrament  of  his 
Supper  to  be  the  Tokens  and  Seals  of  the  Bieffings  of 
thofe  Promifes,  whereby  they  are  confirm'd  and  perpe- 
tuated, to  the  End  of  the  World.  Thus  I  have  lliewed 
from  divers  plain  and  pertinent  Texts  of  Scripture,  that 
it  is  the  Will  of  God,  that  his  Covenant  with  Abraham 
and  his  Seed  fhould  continue,and  be  confirm'd  to  Gofpel- 
Believcrs  and  their  "^i^^d^,  thro'  all  Ages  :  And  conll- 
quently,  that  the  Infants  of  the  Church  are  interefled,  as 
Federates  with  God,  under  the  EvangeHcal  Adminiftra- 
tion  of  the  Covenant.  —  Let  me  briefiy  add  one  or  two 
more  i\rgumcnts. 

Fourthly,  There  are  divers  exprefs  Declarations  in  the 
New-Teilamenr,  that  plainly  &  neceirarily  mfertheCo- 
venantTntereft  of  the  Iniant- Children  of  the  Faithful, 

now 


Chap.  IV.  of  Infant- Baptifm.  2^7 

now  under  the  Gofpel.  I  jfhall  mention  but  three,  thac 
are  fuiiicientiy  plain,  and  pertinent  to  the  Purpofe.  The 
two  firft  I  fhall  but  barely  propound,  becaufe  1  fhall  have 
Occafion  largely  to  vindicate  them, in  the  next  Chapter. 

1.  One  is  that  PalTage,  particularly  recorded  by  three 
of  the  Evangelifts,  of  Chriit's  encouraging  littleChildren 
to  be  bro't  to  him,  his  teftifying  his  Difpleafure  againft 
thofethat  forbad  them,  his  taking  them  up  in  hisArms,and 
bleffing  them,  and  declaring  that  of  fuch  is  the  Kingdom 
cf  God.  Matth.  19.  13,  14.  Mark.  10.  13,  14.  Luk.  18. 
15,  16.  Which  is  the  fame  Thing  in  other  Words,  as  if 
he  had  laid,  that  fuch  little  Children  are  Subjedls  of  the 
Gofpel- Adminiftration  of  God's  Covenant.  And  if  Men 
would  ftand  to  thisTeftimony  of  our  Saviour,one  would 

j  think  it  fully  decifive  of  the  Point  in  Difpute. 

2.  Another  plainDeclaration,  to  the  fame  Purpofe,  Is 
that  of  the  Apoftle,  i  Cor.  7.  14. — Elfe  "Ji:  ere  your  CbiU 
dren  unclean  •,  but  new  are  they  holy.  Thel'erm  holy  is  never 
applied  to  any  of  Mankind  in  the  whole  Scripture,  but 
fuch  as  are  in  Covenant  with  God,  and  feparated  to  his 
Service  :  and  by  this  Term  tlie  federate  People  of  God 
are  often  dillinguifli'd  from  the  uncovenantedand  uncir- 
cumcifed Heathen, who,in  Cppofition  to  them,  are  f}X)ken 
of  as  unclean.  Let  it  fuliice  to  produce  one  Text,  where 
the  fameDiftinftion  occurs,  which  may  ferve  to  explain,  and 
fettle  the  true  Meaning  of  thefe  Words  of  theApoille.  Ifai. 
52. 1. — 0  Jerufahn^  the  holy  City^  henceforth  there  fhall  no 
more  come  into  thee  the  uncircumc'ifed^  ^  the  unclean.  Tak- 
ing the  Words  in  this  Senfe  (which  is  the  true  Scripture 
Senfe)  we  have  from  this  Teflimony  of  the  Apoftle,  full 
Proof  of  thelnfant-Children  of  Believers  being  taken  into 
federal  Relation  to  God  ;  for  on  no  other  Account  coul.d 
they  be  denominated  //d^/y, according  to  the  ufual  Stile  of 
Scripture.  Thefe  twoPalfages  are  excepted  againft  byDr. 
Gi//,but  how  weakly,  will  be  fliewn  in  the  next  Chapter. 

.3.  We  have  a  Declaration,  or  general  Defcription  of 
thofe  whom  God  will  admit  as  Federates  with  him  in  the 
new  Covenant.   Heb,  8.  8.  Behold^  the  Days  corns  {faith 

tbi 


238         A  Defence  of  the  "Divine  Right  Chap.IV, 

the  Lord)  that  I  will  make  a  new  Covenant  with  the  Houfe 
^/lirael,  and  the  Houfe  <?/ Judali,  &c.  f.  10.  This  is  the 
Covenant  that  I  will  make  with  the  Houfe  of  Ifrael  after 
thofe  Days^  &c.  Cited  from  thePropher,  Jer,  31.31,33. 
The  Author  or  Maker  of   the  Covenant  is  the  Lord  Je- 
hovah^ who  has  a  fovereign  Right  to  declare,   whom  he 
will,  and  whom  he  will  not,  accept  as  Federates  in  his 
new  Covenant.    Whom  he  excludes  in  his  Word,  it  be- 
longs not  toMen  to  admit :  and  whom  he  accepts,noMan 
fhculd  dare  to  exclude.     Now  the  Enquiry  is,  Who  are 
thofe  whom  God  vv^ill  account  Federates  with  him  in  the 
new  Covenant,  under  the  Denomination  of  the  Houje  of 
Ifrael?  If  it  comprehends  in  it  Infant-Children,  this  will 
determine  the  Point  without  further  Difpute  j   for  thofe 
feveral  Sorts  of  Perfons  that  are  included  in  that  Deno- 
mination,.are  the  federate  Party,  with  whom  God  makes 
his  newCovenant.  And  for  theRefolution  hereof,we  muft 
enquire  into  twoThings.   i.  What  is  meant  h^^  the  Houfe 
cj  Ifrael?  2.  How  the  antientCovenant  flood withT^/r^^f/  ? 
Firf,  What  is  meant  by  the  Houfe  of  Ifrael  ?     The 
W^ord,  Houfe^  as  here  ufed,  is  by  a  Metonymy  commiOnly 
known,  put  for  the  Inhabitants,  the  People,or  Perfons  of 
the  Houfe  :    Now  if  we  take  it  in  the  iargeil  Senfe,  for 
the  whole  People  of  IfraeU  This,  without  Controveify, 
includes  all  Sorts,  Men,  Women,  Children  and  Infants. 
And  the  Houfe  o^  Ifrael  here    feems  plainly  to  be  under- 
fto  d  in  the  Hime  Extent  with  the  Houfe  of  Ifrael  whom 
God  bro't  outof  theLandof£g"}'^/,refeed  to,>^.  9.  i\mong 
whom, it  is  undoubted, theirChildren  and  little  Ones  were 
included.  Or  if  we  take  it  in  theftrideft  Senfe,for  a  par- 
ticular Family,   this  alfo  includes  Parents  and  Children, 
how  Young  foever  -,  yea,  the  Houfe  is  manyTimes  taken 
for  theRace,  the  Offspring  ^i  Poiferity  of  fuch  a  Family. 
As  when  God  promiied  by  Nathan^to  eftablifh  theKing- 
dom  in  David's  Family,  to  his  Sons,  &:  Pofterity,  David 
thus  exprciies  his  grateful  Senfe  of   the  Favour,   2  Sam. 
■7.  19.  Ihcu  haft  f^oken  alfo  of  thy  Servant's  Houfe  for  a 
great  while  to  come.  ThePhrafe  often  occurs  in  thisSenfe, 

in 


Chap.  IV.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  239 

in  Scripture.  So,  theHoufe ofl^vd^t^and  theHcufe  ^/Aaron, 
Pfal.  1 15.12.  mean  nothing  elfe,  but  their  Children  and 
Poilerity  ;  and  God's  blefilng  the  Houfe  of  i/r^f/&c.  is 
interpreted  to  intend  them  and  their  Children^  ver.  14.  la 
eitherSenie,the//<i?^y^  takes  in  theChildren,without  excep- 
tion of  any  Age  or  Sex.  And  if  the  Covenant  be  made 
with  the  Houfe  or  Family,  none  can  doubt,  butChildren 
are  included  with  theirParents.  If  it  be  faid,that  theHoufe 
oUfrael  mu^  be  underftood  according  to  theSubjed- Mat- 
ter treated  of.and  if  this  be  of  fuch  a  Nature  as  Childrea 
and  Infants  are  uncapable  of,it  is  reafonable  to  underfland 
it  fpoken  of  elder  Perfons  only,  the  Heads  of  Houfes. 
Granting  that  this  fometimes  may  be  theCafe,  it  remains 
then  to  enquire,  whether  Infants  are  uncapable  of  beino- 
entred  Federates  with  God  in  his  Covenant  ?  If  not,  this 
Exception  can  have  no  Place  here.  Wherefore  our  next 
Enquiry  is, 

Secondly^  How  the  ancient  Covenant  flood  with  the 
Houfe  of  Ifrael  ?  For  tho'  theNew-Covenant  befo  called 
in  Refped  of  a  Change  in  the  Mode  of  Adminiitration, 
and  fome  additional  Excellencies,  wherein  it  differs  from 
the  former  ;  yet  it  is  not  called  a  New-Covenant  in  Ref- 
ped of  any  Change  in  the  Federates,  who  were  the  fame 
under  the  Old  &  New  Adminiftration  ;  I  mean  not,  as 
to  Individuals,  but  as  to  the  feveral  Sorts  of  Perfons  in- 
tended by  this  Denomination,  The  Houfe  of  Ifrael,  The 
Old  Covenant  was  made  with  the  Houfe  of  Ifrael  \  and 
God  faith,  1  will  make  a  new  Covenant  with  the  Houfe  of 
Ifrael — CAnd  they  were  natural  Ifraelites  and  naturaliz'd 
Strangers,  that  \%^Jews  &  Frofelytes,w\i\\  whom  the  New- 
Covenant  was  firil  made  ;  of  whom  we  read,  A"?.  2.  who 
were  therefore  properly  theHoufe  of  Ifrael) —  fo  that  the 
Federates  were  the  fame  in  both  Covenants,  without  the 
leaft  Intimation  of  a  Difference,  or  the  leaft  Exception  of 
any  Sort  of  Perlbns  in  the  New-Covenant,  that  were  ad- 
mitted in  the  Old.  Now  I  have  before  fnewed,  that  the 
Covenant  with  the  Houfe  of  Jfrael  under  the  Old  Tefta- 
menr,  tack  in  their  Children  and  little  Ones,  from  the  ex- 

prcfs 


240  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  IV. 

prefs Words  of  M?/^j,Deut.29.  who  addreffing  the  whole 
Body  of  that  People,  faith,  ver.  10.  Tejtmd  this  Day  all 
of  you  before  the  Lord  your  God.dic.  (your  little  Ones,  par- 
ticularly, ver.  II J  that  thou  jhculdeft  enter  into  Covenant 
with  thsLord  thy  Gody3cc.^'.i2,  And  this,purfuant  to  the 
Intention  of  God's  Covenant  with  /Ilraham  a.nd  hisSeed, 
as  Mcfes  intimates,  ver.  13.  But  left  any  Wrangler 
Ihould  fay,  their  little  Ones  might  be  fuch  as  had  grown 
to  fome  Excrcife  of  Reafon,  fo  as  to  be  capable  of  giving 
their  Confent,  Mofes  adds,  ver.  14,15.  Neither  withycu 
cnly  do  I  make  thisCovenant — But  with  him  that  is  not  here 
with  us  this  Day  :  Which  may  be  fitly  underftood  of  t 'leir 
Pofterity,Children  yet  unborn, reprefented  in  that  folemn 
Tranfadlion  by  their  Progenitors  *,  and  fu rely  new-born 
Infants  are  not  iefs  capable  of  the  Covenant.  And  elfe- 
where  they  are  fpoken  of  as  Members  of  the  Congrega- 
tion of  Ifrael.  Joel  2.15,16.  Call  a  folemn  yiffemhly.,  gather 
the  People,  fanftify  the  Congregation,  affemble  the  ElderSy 
gather  the  Children,  and  thofe  that  fuck  the  Breafls,  Chil- 
dren therefore,  and  fucking  Babes,  were  reckoned  of  the 
Church  &  Congregation  of  Jfrael.  As  this  wholly  takes 
oft  the  Objeclion  of  Infants  Incapacity  of  being  entred 
into  Covenant  with  God,  and  of  becoming  Members  of 
his  Church,  fo  it  leaves  no  Manner  of  Doubt,  but  that 
the  fame  Sort  of  Perfons  were  intended  by  God  to  be  Fe- 
derates with  him,  when  he  declares,  that  he  will  make 
a  new  Covenant  with  the  Houfe  of  Ifrael :  And  confe- 
quently,that  the  Infant  Children  of  vifibleBelievers,under 
the  Gofpel,  are  taken  in  with  theirParents  intothisNew- 
Covcnant  :  Which  was  the  Thing  to  be  demonftrated. 
For  which  Purpofe  I  have  produced  abundant  Evidence 
from  the  Scriptures  of  theNew-Teilament  :  But  that  it 
may  appear,  this  is  not  aNew-Teitament  Doctrine  only, 
let  me  add, 

Fifthly,  There  are  plain  Hints  in  the  Scriptures  of  the 
Old-Teltament,  yea  and  exprefs  Predidions,  that  the 
Covenant  Ihould  run  in  the  iameTcnor,with  the  Faithful 
.and  theirSced^  in  Gofpcl-Tirnes,as  ever  it  had  done  from 

the 


Chap.  IV.  cf  Infant-Baptifm.  241 

the  Beginning.  Let  me  briefly  cite  a  few  Teftimonies, 
to  confirm  this. — To  begin  with  Mofes^  in  Deut,  30.  (in 
which  Chapter  there  is  more  of  Evangelical  Dodlrine, 
than  in  any  one  elfe  in  the  Books  of  Mofes^  and  whicli 
evidently  refers  to  the  Times  of  the  Gofpel,  as  I  have 
fhewed)  there  is  this  evangelical  Promlfe,  jj,  6.  The  Lord 
thy  God  will  circumcife  thine  Heartland  theUeart  of  thy  Seed, 
to  love  the  Lord  thy  God^  &c.  To  circumcife  the  Heart  is 
to  purge  it  from  viciousAffedions,  &to  incline  it  prevail- 
ingly to  the  Faith  &Love  of  God,  &Obedience  to  him. 
But  why  does  he  ufe  the  Phrafe  of  circumcifing  the  Heart  ? 
Plainly  in  Allufion  to  the  ancient  Seal  of  Circumcifion,as 
being  the  fpiritual  Grace  of  the  Covenant,  fignified  by 
that  federal  Rite,  which  was  by  divine  Infiitution  applied 
to  Parents  and  their  Infant-Seed.  Which  leads  us  to  iin- 
derftand  the  Rule  and  Method  of  God's  Difpenfation  of 
New-Covenant  Grace,  even  to  believing  Parents  &  their 
Seed,  according  to  the  ancient  Tenor  of  the  Covenant  of 
Circumcifion.  Whence  we  may  argue,  Thofe  to  whom 
God  haspromifed  to  difpeiife  che  Grace  of  hisCovenant, 
are  to  be  reputed  fuch  as  he  has  taken  intoCovenanf  with 
himfelf ;  and  indeed  there  can  be  nogreaterEvidence  than 
thi?,of  a  CovenantTnterefl :  But  to  Parents  &  their  Seed 
in  Gofpel-Times  God  has  promifed  the  Grace  of  his  Co- 
venant, to  circumcife  their  Heart,  and  the  Heart  of  their 
Seed,  &c.  Therefore  God  defign'd  to  take  Parents  with 
their  Seed  into  his  New- Covenant. — Again  in  Fjal.  22. 
which  contains  a  Predidion  of  the  Sufrerings  of  Chriil, 
and  the  Glory  that  fliould  follow  •,  and  as  Part  of  that 
Glory,  it  is  promifed,/.  30.  ^  SeedJJoall  ferve  himjtfball 
be  accounted  to  the  Lord  for  a  Generation,  i.  e.  A  Seed  a- 
mong  theGentiles  (as  theEvent  manifefts)  Hiall  be  adopt- 
ed into  Abraham^  Covenant,  whom  the  Lcrd  will  ac- 
count and  accept  as  his  Covenant-People,  together  with 
their  Seed  in  their  Generations,  as  the  ancientjews  were  ; 
and  ififtead  of  the  Jews,  who  were  broken  oif,  and  un- 
churched becaufeoftheirUnbelief&Rejedicn  ofChriil. — 
Another  Promife  or  Predidion  to  the  fame  Purpofe,  we 

R  have 


242        A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  IV. 

have  in  Ifa.  59.  20  As  for  mCy  this  is  my  Covenant  with 
them,  faith  the  Lordy  My  Spirit  that  is  upon  thee^  and  my 
Words  ivhich  I  have  put  in  thy  Mouthy  fhall  not  depart  out 
cf  thy  Mouthy  nor  out  of  the  Mouth  of  thy  Seed,  nor  out  of 
the  Mouth  of  thy  Sced^s  Seed,  faith  theLord^from  henceforth 
and  for  ever.  That  this  Promife  refers  to  the  Gofpel- 
Difpenfation,  and  as  fome  think, to  a  particular  Period  of 
that  Difpenfation,  when  the  Jews  fhall  be  converted,  the 
Apoftle  teftifiesi^d?;??.  1 1.  26,  27.  If  it  refers  to  theCalling 
of  the  Jews  in  the  latter  Days,  this  makes  no  Odds  in 
the  prefent  Argument  •,  for  we  know, the  Gofpel -Difpen- 
fation is  invariably  the  fame  both  to  Jews  and  Gentiles. 
And  it  is  a  plain  Predidion,  that  theNew-Covenant  that 
fliould  be  made  with  them,  fhould  hold  on  in  the  fame 
Tenor  as  ever  it  had  done  of  old,  with  them  and  their 
Seed,  from  Age  to  Age  to  the  End  of  theWorld. — Fur- 
ther it  is  foretold,  Jtr»  29.  when  God  fhould  raife  upD^- 
^/i  their  King  to  them,  whom  they  fhould  ferve,  who 
could  be  no  other  than  theSon  o^  David,  the  Meffiah,  to 
whom  the  Lord  gave  the  Throne  of  his  Father  ID^iVid,  that 
their  Children  fjjould  he  as  aforetime.  Inheritors  of  the  Co- 
venant-Privileges of  theirParents.  ^'.9.  20. — A  likePro- 
phecy  we  have  in  Ezek.  '2^j.  24,  25,  26.  My  Servant 
David  fjall  be  King  over  them,  and  they  all  fhall  have  one 
Shepherd —  And  they  (loall  dwell  in  the  Land  that  I  have 
given  unto  Jacob  my  Servant, —  Even  they  and  their  Chil^ 
dren,  and  their  Childrens  Children  for  ever.  And  my  Ser- 
vane  David  [hall  he  their  Prince  for  ever.  Moreover  I  will 
make  a  Covenant  of  Peace  with  them  -,  itfloall  be  an  ever- 
Icijling Covenant,  Whatever  Reference  thefe  two  Prophe- 
cies laft  cited,  may  have  to  theState  of  the  Jews  after  their 
return  from  Captivity,yet  certainly  they  look  further,and 
have  their  ultimate  and  compleat  Accomplifliment  only 
in  the  Times  of  theKingdom  of  Chrift,wherein  it  is  pro- 
mifed  (though  in  Language  borrowed  Irom  the  Old-Te- 
fi-ament)  that  the  Covenant- State  of  Children  Ihali  abide 
as  aforetime,  and  that  the  Inheritance  of  vifibleChurch- 
Privilcges,  iliaii  be  tranfmitted  from  Parents  to  Children 

in 


Chap.  IV.  of  Infant- Baptifm.  24^ 

in  fuccelTive  Generations,  as  they  had  been  of  Old  to 
the  natural  Seed  of  Jacob,  I  might  produce  fevcral  other 
PafTages  out  of  the  Pfahns  ^Prophets^ih^t  have  the  fame 
Reference  and  Meaning.  But  I  forbear.  What  has  been 
alleg'd  may  fuflice  to  fhew,  that  the  Old-Teftament  is  no 
Stranger  to  the  Doctrine  of  the  Covenanc-Intereft  of  the 
Seed  of  the  Faithful  under  theNev/.  But  the  Teilimonies 
given  to  it  from  the  Scriptures  of  theNew-Tcflament  are 
mofl  clear  and  convi6live,which  have  therefore  been  more 
largely  infilled  on. 

And  for  a  Conclufion  of  this  Head,  let  me  point  out 
the  manifeft  and  grofsAbfurdities,that  follow  on  the  con- 
trary Opinion,  which  excludes  the  Infants  of  Chriilians 
from  all  Right  or  Intereft  in  theCovenant  of  Grace.  For 
hence  it  follows,  (i)  That  the  New-TeftamentAdmini- 
flration  of  the  Covenanr,which  is  reprefented  inScripture 
as  more  excellent  and  perfedl  than  the  foregoing,  more 
extenfive  and  comprehenfive  in  otherRefpeds,  as  taking 
in  all  Nations  as  well  ^sjews,  is  yet  in  thisRefpe6l  more 
contradled  and  diminifhed,  as  it  excludes  the  Children  of 
Believers,  who  make  up  a  great  Part  fif  not  the  greateftj 
of  the  Nations,  or  of  thofe  Families  ot  theEarth  that  be- 
lieve in  Chrift,  on  whom  it  was  foretold  that  theBleCHng 
o^  Abraham  fnould  come.  (2)  It  follows  that  all  the 
Promifes  of  God  are  not  confirm'd  by  theDeath  of  Chrift, 
nor  are  they  in  him,  Tea  and  Amen^  but  rather  Yea  and 
Nay  ;  for  if  that  moft  valuable  PromJfeof  God's  being 
a  God  to  the  Seed  of  Abraham^  be  not  in  the  Subfbance 
of  it,  digefted  into  his  New- Covenant,  it  is  abolidi'd  by 
theDeath  of  Chrift  :  how  then  hath  he  confirmed  the  Pro- 
mifes made  to  the  Fathers  ?  (3)  It  follows,  that  though 
Chrift  has  on  all  Occafions  exprefs'd  a  kind  Regard  to 
little  Children,takihgfuch  in  his  Arms  and  blefting  them, 
and  declaring  that  oi  fuch  is  the  Kingdom  of  God  ;  yet  he 
has  blotted  out  their  Title  to  all  federal  Relation  toGod  : 
which  implies  a  Contradiction,  as  well  as  an  Abfurdity. 
C4.)It  foliows,that  thoughChrift  has  made  itourDuty  to 
receive  fuch  ItttleChildren  in  hisName,M^s,g,^6,^'j.  yet  he 

R  2  himfei^ 


244  ^  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap,  IV. 

himfelf  has  rcjeacd  them,  and  by  the  Confticution  of  his 
New-Covenant  has  cut  them  off  from  the  Covenant- 
Mercies  of  God.  (5)  It  follows,  that  a  Jewijh  Parent 
could  not  come  over  into  the  New-Covenant  at  the  tirft 
Preaching  and  Promulgation  of  it,  or  become  a  Chriftian, 
without  great  Lofs  and  Detriment  to  his  Children,  by  re- 
nouncing theirPart  in  God's  Covenant,  and  cafting  them 
out  among  Heathens  and  Aliens,  excluding  them  from 
all  Hope  in  Chrift  (at  lead  till  they  grow  up  to  a  Ca- 
pacity of  repenting  &  believing)  and  by  depriving  him- 
ielf  (if  his  Children  die  young)  of  all  Comfort  and  Hope 
in  the  Promife  of  their  eternal  Salvation.  How  eafy  had 
it  been  for  a  Jew  to  object,  I  have  the  Covenant  already 
fealed  to  me  and  my  Children  by  the  Appointment  of 
God,  who  are  thereby  taken  in  among  his  chofen  diftin- 
guifli'd  People,  feparaied  from  the  Heathen  World,and 
intitled  to  peculiar  Favours :  but  by  fubmitting  to  this 
new  Difpenfation  of  Chrift,  whatever  perfonal  Advanta- 
ges I  may  expe6f,  yet  in  fo  doing,  I  fhall  deprive  my 
Children  of  all  the  Privileges  accruing  to  them  by  the 
Covenant  with  the  Seed  of  Abraham^  cancel  their  Title 
to  the  Promife,  thruft  them  out  from  the  Inheritance  of 
theirFathers,&  leave  them  to  theGod  of  thisWorld  with 
uncovenantedPagans,as  having  noPart  with  theLordGod 
of  Ifracl.  Why  then  do  you  perfuade  me  to  embrace 
the  Chriftian  Religion  ?  This  would  have  been  an  invin- 
cible Obftacle  to  the  Jews  coming  over  to  the  Faith  of 
Chrift.  We  find  in  theNew-  Teftament  how  zealous  the 
Jevvs  were  (even  thofe  that  believed  in  Chrift)  for  the 
Circumcifion  of  their  Children,  that  ancient  Seal  of  the 
Promife  -,  and  how  provoked  they  were  at  what  they  had 
heard  of  Pat^Ps  teaching  the  Jews  that  were  among  the 
Gentiles  ^i\\2ii  they  ought  not  to  circumctfe  their  Children.  A6f. 
21.  21.  How  mucn  more  had  they  been  provok'd,  if 
Chriftian  Baptifm  had  not  been  fubftituted  in  its  Room  ? 
And  much  more  ftiil,  if  by  theDodrine  of  this  New- 
Covenant  their  Children  had  been  cut  off  from  all  Cove- 
nant-Relation to,  and  Intercft  in  God  }     (6.)  It  follows, 

that 


Chap.  IV.  of  Infant  Baptifm.  245 

that  the  Children  of  Chriftians  are  in  a  worfe  State,than 
the  Children  of  the  Jews  under  the  Old-Teftament ;  for 
the  latter  were  confeiTedly  taken  with  their  Parents  into 
Covenant  with  God,  and  thereby  into  a  Capacity  for 
Salvation  ;  but  the  former  being  left  out  among  Aliens, 
are  without  Chrift^  without  God  in  the  Worlds  and  without 
Hope.  Eph.  2.12.  For  it  is  certain, that  if  it  be  the  Will 
of  God,  that  the  Children  of  Chriftians  fhou'd  be  exclud- 
ed from  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  it  is  his  Will  that  they 
Ihouldbe  excluded  from  a  State  of  Salvation  :  becaufe  the 
only  revealed  Method  of  Salvation  for  apbftate  Mankind 
is  in  the  Way  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace  propounded  in 
theScriptureSo  Thefe  &  many  the  like  Ablurdities,  that  na- 
turally follow  upon  the  Denial  of  Childrens  Intereft  with 
their  Parents  m  the  New-Covenant,are  not  to  be  endured 
by  Chriftians,  and  may  ferve  to  coniirm  the  foregoing 
Arguments,offer'd  inVindication  of  the  contrary  Truth. 

1  have  dwelt  the  longer  on  this  Head,  to  evince  the 
Right  of  the  Infant-Children  of  confederate  Parents  in 
the  Covenant  under  the  New-'Teftament^  becaufe  I  look 
upon  it  as  the  firm  folid  Bafis,  or  Scripture-Ground  of  the 
Title  of  fuchChildren  toBaptifm.  For  fuppofing  Chrift*s 
Inftitution  of  Baptifm  to  be  the  initiating  Token  &  Seal 
of  hisNew  Covenant,whichhe  has  ordained  to  be  preached 
and  fcal'd  by  his  Minifters  to  all  Nations,  without  Limi- 
tation to  any  Sex  or  Age,  nothing  more  can  be  required 
to  prove  the  Validity  of  the  Baptifm  of  fuch  Children, 
or  to  make  up  an  unanfwerable  Argument  in  Defence  of 
their  Right  to  it,  than  God's  admitting  &  accepting  the 
Children  of  Believers  as  Federates  in  theNew- Covenant, 
and  the  parental  Right  and  Power  of  dedicating  them 
unto  God  :  Both  which  have  been  fully  demonicrated. 
But  before  1  proceed  to  confider  Dr.  GiU's  Pretenfions  in 
Reply  to  this  Argument,  there  is  one  or  two  Things 
more  to  be  premis'd. 

6.  When  we  fpeak  of  theCovenant  of  Grace, or  of  any 
Perfon's  Intcreft  in,  or  Exclufion  from  it,  the  Covenant 
of  Grace  is  to  be  confider'd  either  inRefped  of  its  vifibic 

K  3  Adminiftra- 


24^  A  Bejence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  IV. 

Adminiftration,  or  in  Refped  of  its  internal  fpiritual  Ef- 
ficacy. Or  thus,  we  mult  diftinguiih  between  the  Co- 
venant of  Grace  outwardly  adminifter'd  in  the  vifible 
Church,  &  inwardly  received  by  a  fpiritual  Difpenfation 
of  its  Grace  to  the  Souls  of  Men.  There  is  a  NecefTity 
of  admitting  thisDiftindion  -,  otherwife  v/e  fhall  run  into 
allCcnfufion,in  our  Conceptions  and  Difcourfes  on  this 
Subject.  The  fame  Man  may  be  truly  affirmed  to  be 
in  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  and  as  truly  deny'd  to  be  in 
thatCovenanr,which  mayfeem  an  abfolureContradidlion  ♦, 
unlefs  we  oblcrvejby  the  Help  of  fuch  a  Diftindion  as 
this,  in  whatRefpect  he  is  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace,and 
in  what  he  is  not.  A  Man  may  be  in  the  Covenant  of 
GraceinRefpe6lof  itsvifibleAdmini{lration,asail  are  who 
make  a  credible  Profellion  of  their  Confent  to  it,  &  come 
under  theScals  of  it  ;  and  yet  he  may  not  be  in  the  Co- 
venantof  Grace  inRegard  of  its  fpiritualDifpenfation  and 
Efficacy.  This  is  the  Cafe  of  all  clofe  Hypocrites,who 
cannot  be  diftinguilli'd  by  Man  from  thofe  that  are  fm- 
cere,  and  yet  their  religious  Profellion  and  Behaviour  is 
fuch  as  entitles  them  to  our  Charity,  and  by  the  Rule  of 
Charity  they  are  to  be  accounted  and  treated  as  trueCcn- 
federates,though  deftitute  of  a  graclousPrinciple  of  Faith 
and  Love  to  God.  This  Diftindion  is  fo  well  known, 
and  approved  by  all  Divines,  that  it  were  needlefs  to  fay 
any  more  about  it,  but  that  the  Want  of  obferving  it 
fcems  the  Caufe  of  all  that  Indiflindnefs,  and  Confufion 
that  runs  through  Dr.  G///'s  Difcourfeon  this  Flead,  who 
never  tells  us  clearly  what  he  means  by  being  in  the  Co- 
venant of  Grace.  As  far  as  I  can  underftand  him,  he 
difallows  this  Didindion,  holding  that  all  and  only  the 
Eied  arc.in  the  Covenant  of  Grace.  For  fays  he, P.  47. 
*'  I'he  Covenant  of  Grace  was  made  with  Chriif ,  and 
<^'  his  People  in  him  from  Everlading."  And  fo  he  con- 
founds the  two  Covenants,which  I  have  before  prov*d  to 
he  entirely  diftinfl ;  and  have  alio  provM  that  many  of 
the  Eled  are,  in  their  natural  State,  Strangers  from  the 
Coyenanr^  both  as  to  its  outward  Adminifl:ration,and  in- 

v/ard 


Chap.  IV.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  247 

ward  Efficacy.  And  yet  he  goes  on  to  fay,  P.  5  r.  Thofe 
who  are  in  this  Covenant  "  have  all  of  them  the  Laws 
*'  of  God  put  into  their  Minds,  and  written  in  their 
"  Hearts."  Which  fecms  aContradidion  to  what  he  had 
faid  before  :  unlefs  he  will  aflert,  that  all  that  are  in  the 
Covenant  of  Grace,  have  the  Laws  of  God  written  in 
their  Hearts  from  Everlafling,  and  confequently  are 
fanclify'd  as  well  as  juftify'd  from  Eternity  ;  which  is 
againft  common  Senfe.  For  if  it  be  true,that  all  that  are 
in  the  Covenant  of  Grace  have  the  Laws  of  God  written 
in  their  Hearts,  then  it  is  certain  that  the  Eledl  were  not 
in  the  Covenant  of  Grace  from  Everlafting  :  For  before 
their  Converfion  they  have  not  the  Law  of  God  written 
in  their  Hearts,  but  the  Law  of  Sin  governs  there.  'Tis 
true,  indeed,  that  all  who  are  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace 
in  Regard  ot  its  inward  Efficacy,  have  the  Law  of  God 
written  in  their  Hearts ;  but  this  is  not  true  of  all  that 
are  in  that  Covenant  in  Refped  of  its  outward  Admini- 
ftration.  This  Diftindion  well  obferv'd,  will  help  to  dif- 
cover  the  Sophiftry  of  moft  of  Dr.  GilW  Arguments,  as 
I  have,  in  Part,  fhewed  already,  f  fhall  endeavour  there- 
fore to  make  it  good  in  a  few  Words. 

Firfi;^  It  may  be  made  good  by  a  foregoing  Obferva- 
tion,  that  the  Covenant  of  Grace  is^in  its  ejfential  Confiitu- 
tion^one  and  the  fame  under  various  Forms  of  Jdminiflration. 
If  indeed  this  Covenant  was  made  with  Men  fromEver- 
lafting,  as  Dr.  Gill  imagines,  I  fee  no  Need  of  any  Ordi- 
nances or  outward  Adminiftrations  to  bring  Men  into  it. 
But  as  I  have  proved  the  Covenant  to  be  Conditional, 
confiftingof  mutualStipulations,Promifes&Engagements 
between  God  and  Men,  fo  God  has  feen  meet  in  hisWif- 
dom  and  Goodnefs  to  appoint  a  Miniftry,  &  Ordinances 
in  his  Church,  as  the  outward  Means  of  tranfading  the 
Covenant  between  himfelf  and  his  People.  And  tho'  ia 
Regard  of  the  inward  Frame  and  Conftitution  of  the  Co- 
venant of  Grace,  thofe  only  may  be  faid  to  be  within  it, 
who  have  received  the  Grace  of  the  Covenant,  and  have 
true  Faith  and  Piety  in  their  Hearts,  yet  all  thofe  may 
"       R  4  *  bp 


24S  ^A  Defence  oj  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  IV. 

be  truly  faid  to  be  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  in  Regard 
of  its  external  Adminillration,  who  according  to  theWill 
of  God  are  broi  ght  under  that  Adminiftration,  or  by 
profelTed  Confent  fubmit  to  it  •,  whether  they  have  true 
Faith  and  Piety  in  their  Hearts,or  nor.  So  all  thePeople 
oi  Ifrael  cntred  into  Covenant  with  God  under  the  Mini- 
Ilry  ot  Mofes  -,  call  it  a  legalAdmini{lration,if  you  pleafe, 
yet  it  was  oneForm  of  Adminiftration  of  a  true  Covenant 
of  Grace.  So  under  the  Gofpel-Adminiftration,  though 
the  Covenant  continuing  efientially  the  fame,  the  fame 
true  Faith  and  Piety  in  the  Heart  is  ftill  requifite,  as  an 
Evidence  of  an  Intereil  in  the  Covenant,  in  Refped  of 
Its  inward  Application  •,  yet  the  conditional  Propoficion 
of  Chriftand  Gofpe.'-Beneiifs  by  the  Miniftry  he  has  ap- 
pointed in  his  Church,  brings  all  that  profefledly  confent 
to  ii'jWith  rheir  Seed,  under  the  outwardAdminift ration  ; 
■who  may  therefore  be  truly  faid  in  that  Refpe(5t  to  be  in 
the  Covenant  of  Grace,  tor  they  have  a  Right  to  all  the 
Ordinances  &  external  Privileges  of  the  Church, whether 
they  be  truly  regenerated,  or  have  true  faving  Grace  in 
their  Hearts,  or  no,  which  is  not  difcernable  to  Man. 
Wherefore, 

Secondly i  It  may  be  made  good  frorn  its  Coincidence 
v/ith  the  commonly  received  Diftindion  of  the  Church 
into  vifible  and  invifible. 

The  invifibieChurch  confifts  of  all,  &  only  realSaints; 
called  invif]ble,becaufe  that  Grace  in  the  Heart, which  is 
their  diftinguijThing  Chara6ter,  is  invifible  to  the  World, 
and  difcernable  only  to  theEye  of  God.  All  theMembers 
of  this  invifible  Church,  it  will  be  granted,  are  in  the 
Covenant  of  Grace,  in  Regard  of  its  fpiritual  EfHcacy, 
The  vifibleChurch  confifts  of  all  that  make  a  viliblePro- 
felTion  of  the  Chriilian  Faith  ^Religion,  not  contradicfled 
in  their  Fives  ;  among  whom,  it  is  not  doubted,  there 
are  many  real  Hypocrites,  yet  all  thcfc  are  in  the  Bonds 
of  the  Covenant  of  Grace.  For  the  vifible  Church  is  no 
other  than  a  Society  of  Men  confederated  in  the  Bond  of 
the  Covenant,  for  the  Service  and  Woriliip  of  the  true 

God 


Chap.  IV.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  249 

God  in  his  Son  Jefiis  Chrift.  But  how,or  In  vvhatRefpedl 
are  all  fuch  Proteffors  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace  ?  Anfvj, 
In  Refped  of  the  vifible  Adminiftration  of  it,  according 
to  divine  Inflitution.  The  Church  of  the  Old  Tedamenc 
was  founded  on  the  Covenant  vifibly  tranfaded  between 
God  and  Ifrael  by  Sacrifice.  Exod.  24.  6,  7,  8.  Hence 
Pfal.  50.  5.  Gather  my S dints  together  unto  me  -,  tbcfe  that 
have  made  aCovenant  with  me  bySacrifice.  And  theGofuel- 
Church  has  no  other  Foundation  than  the  NewCovenant 
in  the  Blood  of  Chriff^  the  great  Sacrifice  of  the  New  Te- 
ftament,(M^//.  26.28.)  fince  it  is  a  profefled Acceptance 
of,  and  Confent  to  the  conditional  Propofitionof  it,  that 
brings  all  adult  Memberswith  theirSeed, under  its  vifible 
Adminiftration.  So  that  this  Diftindtion  of  thcCovenant 
is  grounded  on  the  fame  Rcafon  with  that  of  the  Church 
into  vifible,  and  invifible. 

Thirdly^  Ic  is  further  made  good  by  the  CommifTion 
and  DiredionChrift  has  given  his  Apoftles  andMinifters, 
Matt.  28.  19.  Go  teach  (or  dik'ipk)  all Nation^^baptizing 
them^&c.  Mar.  16.16.  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized, 
fhall  be  faved.  Baptifm  is  a  folemn  Covenant-Dedication 
jof  the  baptized,  to  God  the  Father, Son, andHolyGhoft  ; 
And  Chrift  has  inftru-fled  and  dire^ed  his  Minifters  to 
baptize  all  that  profefs  themfelves  his  Difciples  and  Be- 
lievers,and  appear  fuch  to  ajudgment  of  Charity.  There- 
fore it  can't  rationally  be  denied,  that  all  fuch  are,  ac- 
cording to  the  Will  of  Chrift,admitted  into  the  Covenant 
of  Grace,outwardly  adminiftred.  But  hasChrift  promifed 
Salvation  to  all  fuch  ProfefTors  without  Diftmdion, when 
he  faith.  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized^  froall  be  faved  ? 
No,  but  CO  chofe  only  vyho  alfo  believe  in  their  Hearts^  as 
well  as  ccnftfs  with  their  Mcuths^^ho  are  in  theCovenant 
of  Grace  in  Refpe6l  of  its  fpiritual  Application.  BuiChrift 
having  committed  the  Adminiftration  of  his  Covenant  to 
fa'lible  Men,  who  have  no  difcerning  of  the  Mearcs  of 
others,  has  m.ade  it  their  Duty  to  accept  a  credible  Pro- 
feffion,  as  their  Warrant  for  admitting  Perfons  to  theOr- 
dinances  &  Seals  of  the  Covenant.     1  Hiall  only  add. 

Fourthly^ 


250         A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.IV. 

Fourthly,  Its  NecefTity  will  appear  in  Order  to  the  ex- 
plaining and  reconciling  feveral  Terms  and  Phrafes  of 
Scripture,  e.  g.  The  Apoftle  faith,  Rom.  9.  6.  They  are 
not  all  Ifrael^that  are  of  Ifrael,  How  is  this  to  be  unrid- 
dled ?  That  all  Ifrael  were  a  People  in  Covenant  with 
God, is  undeniable,inRegard  of  its  vifibleAdminiflration  \ 
but  all  were  not  in  Covenant,  in  Regard  of  its  fpiritual 
Application.  The  Kingdom  of  God,fo  often  mentioned 
in  the  New-Teilament,  requires  the  fame  Diftindion  for 
the  right  underflanding  of  it.  Hereby  is  intended  that 
gracious  divine  Government,  which  is  ere(5led  over  Men 
in  their  fallen  State,  dilpens'd  by  Chrift  as  a  Mediator, 
in  Order  to  their  Recovery  and  Salvation.  And  the  great 
Inflrument  or  Rule  of  this  Difpenfation,  is  the  Gofpei 
orCovenant  of  Grace,which  is  therefore  fometimes  called 
the  Ki?jgdomof  God.  Matt.  21.  43.  Now  there  is  nothing 
more  commonly  obferved,than  that  theKingdom  otGod, 
in  the  Gofpei,  fignifies  either  the  divine  Rule  &Govern- 
ment  in  the  Souls  of  Men,  which  is  the  fameThing  with 
the  Covenant  of  Grace  inwardly  difpens'd  and  received  ; 
or  the  external  Adminiftration  of  this  Government  by 
the  Laws  and  Ordinances  of  Chrift  in  the  vifibleChurch  ; 
which  anfwers  to  the  Covenant  of  Grace  outwardly  ad- 
miniftred.  And  in  either  of  thefe  Refpedts,  Men  may 
be  truly  faid  to  be  in  the  Kingdom  of  God,  and  confe- 
quently  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace  :  And  our  Saviour 
gives  the  Term  of  the  Children  of  the  Kingdom  to  both 
thefe  Sorts  of  Subjecls.  As  wlien  he  faith,  Matt.  8.  12. 
The  Children  of  the  Kingdom  fhall  be  caft  out  into  outer 
Barknefs  -,  He  means  the  SubjeCls  of  the  external  Admi- 
niftration only.  And  when  he  faith,  in  explaining  the 
Parable  of  the  Tares,  Matth.  13.  38.  The  good  Seed  are 
the  Children  of  the  Kingdom^  i.  e.  the  Heirs  of  the  hea- 
venly Kingdom,  f.  43.  He  fpeaks  oF  the  Subje6ls  of  the 
internal  gracious  Difpenfation.  Again,  when  theGofpei 
Church  is  called  an  holy  Nation,  i  Pet.  2.  9.  the  fame 
Diftindion  is  to  he  made  uk  of:  it  is  Holy,  either  really 
or  relatively  ^  either  by  Covenant-Relation  to  God  only, 

and 


Chap.  IV.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  -251 

and  Separation  from  the  World  for  holy  Services,  or  alfo 
by  true  Sandlification  of  theHearc,  wrought  by  theGrace 
oftheCovenant  inwardly  difpens'd;  and  fo  it  correfponds 
with  both  Parts  of  theDiilindion  laid  down.     Thus  our 
Saviour  faith,  Matt.  22.  14.   Many  are   called^   but  few 
are  chojen. — Are  called  •,  to  what  ?  Called  to  theGofpel- 
Covenant,  called  to  the  Kingdom  of  God,  called  into  a 
vifibie  Church-State  (all  which  are  fynonymous  Expref- 
fions)  under  the  outward  Adminiftration  oftheCovenant. 
But  few  are  chofen.  i.  e.  Called  by  the  effectual  Grace  of 
the  Covenant,  purfuant  to  their  eternal  Eleclion.    Many 
the  likeExpreHions  there  are,that  require  the  likeDiftinc- 
tion  •,  but  it  may  feem  fupertiuous,  and  almoll   trifling, 
to  infill  on  the  liiuftration  of  a  Matter  fo  clear  and  plain 
in  itfelf  :  Yet  the  Necefnty  of  thisDiftinclion  wiU appear 
in  the  Sequel,  for  clearing  and  fettling  the  Truth  in  Op- 
pofition  to  Dr.  G/V/'j  Objedions.     I  Ihall    add  but  one 
Thing  more. — 

7.  That  the  Evidence  of  a  Covenant-Intereft  gives  a 
proper  &  full  Right  to  the  initiating  Token  of  the  New- 
Covenant,  which  is  Baptifm.  So  that  all  thofe  to  whom 
it  appears  the  Covenant  belongs,  ought  to  have  this  ini- 
tiating Sign  and  Seal  adminiifred  to  them.  That  Bap- 
tifm is  fuch  a  Sign  and  Seal  of  the  New-Covenant  (tho* 
deny'd  by  Dr.  Gill)  I  lliall  prove  afterwards.  Here  let 
me  Ihew  in  ,a  few  Words,  that  a  CovcnantTntereft  gives 
a  juil  Right  to  the  initiatingToken  and  Seal.  This  alfo  is 
fo  clear  aFoint,as  to  admit  of  no  reafonableDoubt.  For, 

( I.)  God,  when  he  firit  appointed  an  initiating  Token 
of  his  Covenant,  defign'd  it  to  confirm  thePromife  to  A- 
braham  and  his  Seed^  to  be  to  them  a  God,  as  well  as  their 
Obligation  to  keep  his  Covenant.  So  that  all  Federates 
have  an  indifputable  Claim  to  it  as  aPnvilege.  God, who 
hath  given  the  greaterThing,does  not  with-hold  thelefs  ; 
nay,  the  greater  Thing  virtually  includes  the  lefs.  The 
Covenant.with  the  annexed  Token  or  Seal  is  infeparably 
join'd  in  God's  Grant.     See  Gen.  17.  10,1 1. 

(2.)  God  has  commanded  the  initiating  Token  of  his 

Covenant 


252  A  Defence  of  the  JDivine  Right  Chap.  IV. 

Covenant  to  be  applied  to  all  thofe  whom  hehasgracioufly 
pleafed  to  admit  as  Federates  therein  -,  and  that  in  as  full 
and  large  Extent  as  the  Covenant  it  kK  toAI?raham^  and 
his  Seed  •,  and  to  the  Stranger  that  was  not  of  his 
Seed,  i.  e.  to  the  profelyted  Gentile  and  his  Seed.  As 
appears  from  Gen.  17.  10,  11,  12,  13.  Exod,  12.  48. 
And  though  the  Female  Seed  of  Abraham^  by  Reafon 
of  a  natural  Incapacity,  receiv'd  not  Circumcifion  in 
the  Fle(h,yec  they  were  virtually  circumcis'd  in  theMales, 
and  reputed,  as  fuch,  to  be  of  the  circumcis'd  People  of 
God,  as  they  were  diftinguifli'd  from  Strangers  and  Fo- 
reiorners  •,  and  as  belonging  to  the  Congregation  of  Ifrael^ 
who  were  oblig'd  to  eat  the  PafTover,  which  they  might 
not  dojif  accounted  uncircumcifed.  For  no  uncircumcifed 
Ferfon  could  lawfully  eat  thereof  Exod.  12.3,4,  47,  48. 
Therefore  this  initiating  Token  and  Seal  being  equally 
extended  with  the  Covenant,  efpecially  to  the  Males  of 
Abraham^ %Stt<^^2\\  thefeSorts  of  Federates  might  warran- 
tably  claim  this  initiating  federal  Token,boch  by  thePro- 
mife  &  Command,and  ought  to  have  it  apply'd  to  them. 
(3.)  For  this  Reafon,  the  Sign  is  call'd  by  the  Name 
of  the  Thing  fignified.  God  calls  Circumcifion  his  Co- 
venant, Gen.  17.  10.  'This  is  my  Covenant — Every  Man- 
Child  among  you  ftoall  he  circumcifed.  Again  y^  13.  My 
Covenant  fh all  he  in  your  Flefh^for  an  everlaflingCovenant ; 
plainly  intimating,  that  this  federal  Token  belonged  to 
all  in  the  Covenant,  and  that  all  the  Federate  might 
and  ought  to  be  mark'd  v/ith  it,  and  diftinguiih'd  from 
the  World  as  an  holy  People  to  God  •,  if  they  had  not 
the  Sign  of  Circumcifion,  they  had  not  the  Covenant  of 
God  in  the  true  and  full  Intent  &  Meaning  o\  it.  Now 
if  Baptifm  has  the  fame  Place  and  Uje  in  the  New- 
Covenant  of  Chrifr,  as  Circumcifion  had  in  the  Abraha- 
mitical  Covenant,  if  it  be  a  facred  Rite  of  Initiation  into 
the  Chriftian  Church,  as  Circumcifron  was  in  theChurch 
of  Ifrael  •,  tlien  the  Arguments  1  have  here  produced 
from  a  Covenant-Stare  &  interefl,  hold  as  ftrong  in  Be- 
half of  the  New  Ccvcnani -Federates  their  Right  to  Bap- 
tifm, 


Chap.  IV.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  253 

tifm,  as  of  the  Federates  in  Abraham^  Covenant  their 
Right  to  Circumcifion,     And  this  1  fhall  fhew — 

(4. J  OurLordJefusChrift  has  enjoin'd  his  Apoftles  and 
Minifters  to  initiate  into  his  Church  and  Covenant,  all 
whom  by  Preaching  the  Gofpel  they  Ihould  makcDifci- 
ples  and  Profelytes  to  his  Religion,  by  Baptifm,  as  the 
Sign  &  Seal  of  his  New-Covenant.  This  is  evident  from 
the  Commiffion  he  gave  them,  Math,  28.19.  Mark,  16, 
15,  16.  That  Baptifm  is  a  Sacrament  of  Initiation  into 
the  Church  or  Covenant  of  Chriil,is  undeniable,  and  it 
may  be  prov'd  from  thefeTexts,  Joh.^.c,.  Tit.  3.  5.  i  Cor, 
12.  13.  Gal.  3.27.  Now  Chrift  has  exprefly  enjoin'd  his 
Minifters  to  apply  the  Sacrament  of  Initiation  to  all  that 
fliould  be  profelyted  to  hisNew-Covenant,to  all  that  they 
fhould  make  Difciples  to  him  :  and  therefore  all  Fede  • 
rates  under  the  New-Teftament  have  an  unqueilionable 
Right  to  this  initiating  Sign  and  Seal. 

{^.)  ThePra6lice  ot  the  Apoftles  was  agreable  to  this 
their  Commiffion,  in  admitting  all  that  were  converted 
by  their  Miniftry,  into  the  New- Covenant  of  Chrifb,  by 
this initiatingSacrament ot  Baptifm  A6t.2.4i.  'Then they 
that  gladly  received  his  l^Vord  (i.  e.  willingly  confented  to 
the  Gofpel-  Covenant  propounded  to  them  by  theApoftle 
Pd-Z^r, /.38,39.)  were  baptized.  Which  confirms  the 
Right  of  the  New-Teflament-Federates  to  this  initiating 
Ordinance. 

(6,)  The  Apoflle  Fder  propounds  the  Dodrine  and 
Promife  of  the  New-Covenant  as  the  very  Ground  and 
Reafon  why  thofe  that  received  it,  Ihould  be  baptized. 
{ibid,)  Repent^  faith  he,  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in 
the  Name  of  Jefus  Chrift  &c.  for  the  Promife  is  unto  you 
and  to  your  Children.  The  Promife,  which  had  been  all 
along, with  Jbraham,?Lnd  theParents  of  thejewifh  Church 
and  their  Children,  the  Reafon  why  they  Ihouid  receive 
Circumcifion,  Chriil  here,  by  the  Mouth  of  his  infpired 
Apoftle,  adopts  and  digefts  into  his  New-Covenant,  as  a 
conftituent  Part  of  it.  And  becaufe  the  Promife  was  to 
them  and  their  Children,  therefore  they  with  their  Chil- 
dren, 


254         ^  Defence  of  the  'Divine  Right         Chap. IV. 

dren,  ought  to  come  under  this  New- Covenant- Admini- 
ftration,  in  being  baptized  in  the  Name  of  Jefus  Chrift. 

This  is  the  only  proper  fcriptural  Ground  of  any  One's 
Right  or  Claim  to  have  the  Covenant  feal'd  to  him  •,  it  is 
a  Covenant- Intereft,evidenc'd  to  the  Satisfadion  of  the 
Adminiftrators  of  the  Ordinance,that  gives  any  onCjwhe- 
ther  Parent  or  Child,  a  Right  to  this  initiatingSacrament. 
A  Covenant-Intereft,  gives  a  Right  in  theSight  of  God  : 
but  it  muft  be  evidenc'd  to  Men,  fo  far  as  they  are  capa- 
ble of  fuch  an  Evidence,  as  the  Ground  and  Warrant  of 
the  vifible  Adminiflration  of  the  Ordinance.  And  this, 
I  fay,  is  the  only  proper  Ground  of  a  Right  to  this  initi- 
ating Seal  •,  if  this  does  not  give  a  Right,  there 
is  nothing  elfe  can.  The  Evidence  from  the  Word  of 
God  of  the  Covenant-Intereft  of  the  Seed  of  the  Faithful 
is  unexceptionable.  The  Antipnsdobaptifts  think  it  bell 
to  put  off  the  Claim  that  is  made  for  Infants  to  Baptifm, 
Cwhether  they  be  in  Covenanr,or  no)till  they  are  capable 
ot  believing  on  Chrift,  and  making  a  perfonal  Profeflion 
of  their  Faith,  that  it  may  appear,  who  are,  and  who  are 
not  in  Covenant  with  God  :  But  this  is  to  fet  up  Man's 
Wit  againft  the  Wifdom  of  God.  God's  Covenant  and 
Promile,  in  facred  Record,  extended  to  confederate  Pa- 
rents and  their  Infant-Children,  is  as  fure  an  Evidence  of 
their  Inte?eft  inhisCovenant,and  that  he  has  taken  them 
under  the  Adminiftration  of  it,  as  any  adual  ProfefTion 
of  adult  Perfons  can  be.  And  indeed  a  bare  ProfefTion 
of  Faith  in  Chrift  is  no  Evidence  at  all  of  a  Covenant- 
Intereft.  The  Devil  believes  there  is  a  God, and  he  con- 
fefs'd  his  Belief  that  Jefus  was  the  Son  of  God:  And 
what  does  it  avail,  tho'  a  Man  profefs  F'aith  inChrift,  if 
his  irreligious  and  immoral  Life  gives  theLie  ro  hisPro- 
feiTion  .?  Does  fuch  Profeflion  evidence  a  Man's  Intereft 
in  the  Covenant,  or  give  any  Right  to  Baptifm  ^  This 
will  not  be  faid.  Therefore  it  muft  be  aCovenant-Intereft 
alone,that  gives  thisRight :  and  it  is  the  Manifeftation  of 
it  by  a  credible  Profeflion  in  adult  Perfons,  that  muft  be 
the  Rule  for  Minifters  and  Churches  to  go  by,  in  judg- 
ing 


Chap.  IV.  of  Infant-Baptlfm.  255 

ing  of  this  Intereft  and  Right.  And  as  for  the  Infant- 
Children  of  confederate  Parents,  their  Intereft  in  thcCo- 
venant  of  Grace  evidenced,  and  confirmed  by  the  many 
Tefti monies  of  God's  Word  which  I  have  produced,  is 
as  fure  a  Guide  and  Warrant  for  adminiftring  the  initiat- 
ing Rite  of  Baptifm  to  them,  as  the  other,  that  of  the 
moft  credible  ProfefTion  in  the  Adult,can  be.  Wherefore 
the  Refult  of  all  the  foregoing  Obfervations  is  this,  viz. 
That  the  Infants  of  confederate  Chriftian  Parents  have^ 
divine  Right  (or  aRight  founded  on  the  Teftimonies  and 
Declarations  of  the  Word  of  God)  to  Baptifm,  the  initi- 
ating Sign  and  Seal  of  the  Covenant,  under  the  Gofpel- 
Adminiftration.  For  the  Argument  hence,  as  it  is  plain 
and  clear,fo  it  is  undeniable,and  unanfwerable  ;  viz.  All 
thole  who  have  an  Intereft  in  theCovenant  of  Grace,  have 
a  juft  and  proper  Right  to  the  initiating  Token  and  Seal 
of  it,  and  ought  to  be  fign'd,  mark'd,  and  diftinguifhed 
by  it,  as  belonging  to  theCovenant  People  of  God  :  But 
the  Infants  of  Chriftian-Parents  who  are  inCovenantwith 
God,  have  an  Intereft  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  under 
the  Gofpel.  Thefe  two  Propofitions  ftand  firm  on  Scrip- 
ture-Grounds, as  I  have  fliewed.  The  Conclufion  there- 
fore is  undeniable,  that  the  Infants  of  confederate  Parents 
have  a  Right  to  the  initiatingToken  &  Seal  of  theCovenant^ 
under  the  Chriftian  Difpenfation^  which  is  Baptifm. 

The  major  Propofition,  viz.  That  all  who  have  an  In- 
tereft in  the  Covenant  of  Grace  Jjave  a  juft  and  proper  Right 
&r.  I  have  fully  confirm.ed  under  the  laft  Head  of  Ob- 
fervations, fromScripturePromifeSjPrecepts  &Examples: 
And  it  cannot  be  denied  on  any  Grounds  of  Reafon 
orScripture.  The  minor ^-^hxch  is  moft  difputed,  w^.That 
the  Infants  of  Chriftian  Parents  have  an  Intereft  in  the  Co^ 
venant  of  Grace  ;  This  alfo  has  been  abundantly  confirm- 
ed by  maniiold  Scripture-Teftimonies,  under  the  fifth 
Head.  From  both  which  Propofitions  the  divine  Right 
of  Chriftian  Infants  to  Baptifm  neceilarily  refults.  And 
hence  we  are  furnifhed  with  as  good  a  Rule  &  Warrant 
for  baptizing  them,  as  if  it  were  ever  fo  exprefly  com- 

mauded 


2^6  A  Defence  of  the  Dhine  Right         Chap.  IV. 

manded.  And  this  was  the  very  Rule  that  the  Apoftle 
Peter  went  by,  in  baptizing  Cornelius  znd  his  Houfliold. 
He  had  no  particular  exprefs  Order  to  do  it^that  we  read 
of  i  but  he  concluded  it  to  be  the  Mind  &  Will  of  God, 
that  he  fhould  baptize  them,  from  this  Rule,  that  thofe 
of  whom  it  is  evident  God  hath  admitted  them  into  his 
Covenant  under  the  Gofpel,  ought  to  be  baptized  :  and 
therefore  thought  he  had  as  good  a  Warrant  to  baptize 
Cornelius  &  hisCompany,  from  the  Gift  of  the  HolyGhoft 
conferred  on  them,  which  was  the  great  Evidence  of  God's 
receiving  and  owning  them  in  his  Gofpel-Covenant,  as  if 
he  had  the  moft  exprefs  and  dired:  Order  for  doing  it. 
A 61.  lo.  47.  Can  any  Man  forbid  Water^that  thife  froould 
mt  be  baptized^  which  have  received  the  Holy  Ghcjt^as  well 
as  we  ?  And  tho'  he  had  no  other  Warrantjthan  this  E- 
vidence  of  God's  Acceptance  of  them  into  his  Covenant, 
yet  if  he  had  refus'd  to  baptize  them  on  this  Ground,  he 
reckons  he  fliould  have  been  guilty  of  withfbandingGod. 
For  relating  the  fame  Matter,  in  the  following  Chapter, 
he  faith,  f.  ij.  For  as  much  as  God  gave  them  the  likeGift 
as  he  did  unto  us,  who  believed  on  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrijl  ; 
what  was  /,  that  I  could  wiihftandGod  ?  For  juil  the  fame 
Reafon  we  baptize  theChildren  of  Behevers  ;  becaufeGod 
hasin  his  Word  plainly  declared  his  Acceptance  of  them  in- 
to hisCovenant.  It  is  therefore  an  impertinentCavil  of  the 
Antipsedobaptifts,  that  there  is  no  exprefs  Command 
for  baptizing  Infants.  We  have  no  Command,  it  is 
true,  in  thefe  exprefs  Terms,  Baptize  your  Infants  ;  nor 
is  there  any,in  the  like  tx^pitkTtvtn^ Baptize  the  Adult  : 
But  fince  we  have  an  exprefs  Inftitution  of  Baptifm  for  all 
Sorts  of  Chriftian  Federates,  qr  Difciples, without  Limi- 
tation or  Exception  of  any  Age  or  Sex  j  the  Infants  of 
Believers  having  been  proved  Federates  under  theNew- 
Teftament,there  is  as  exprefs  an  Inftiiution  &  Comm.and, 
and  as  good  a  Warrant  for  their  Baptifm,  as  for  that  of 
the  Adult.  What  tho'  there  be  no  exprefs  Command 
from  Scripture  for  baptizing  Infants  ?  If  it  be  implicitly, 
or  by  neceijary  ConfequencecommandedjWeareas  much 

oblig'd 


Chap.  IV.  of  Infant-Baptilln.  257 

obiig'd  to  it,   as  if  we  had  the  moil  exprefs  Command 
for  it.     What  has  God  given  us  Reafon  andUnderlland- 
ing  for,  but  ch:?!  we  might  fearch  out,  know,  and  deter- 
mine our  Duty,  from  the  Declara-.ions  of  his  Mind  and 
Will  in  his  Word,  whether  it  be  delivered  in  exprefsPre- 
cepts  therein,  or  by  juft  and  good  Con.l'qiience  to  be  de- 
duced therefrom  ?  And  by  the  du?  Improvement  of  our 
Reafon,  we  may  gather  our  Duty  from  a  virtual  or  im- 
plicit Conmiand  of  Scripture  ;  and  I'uch  an  impj'cirCom- 
mand  may  be  perceived  &  underilood  even  in  a  Promife. 
Paul  and  Barnabas  infer*d  a  virtual  Command  from  God 
to  turn  from  the  Jews,  and  to  preach  the  Gofpel  to  the 
Gentiles,  from  a  Scripture-Promifc.  A61.  13.  46,47. — 
LoyWe  turn  to  iheGeniiies,  forfo  hath  the  Lord  ccmmandcd 
tis^  faying  J  have  fct  thee  to  he  a  Light  to  the  Gentiles^  &c. 
Tho'  Paul  had  his  CommiiTion  to  preach  to  the  Gentiles, 
yet  he  determines  his  Duty,  in  the  Execution  of  it,  from 
the  written  Word  of  God,  the  (landing  Revelation  of  his 
Will ;    and  from  a  Promife  in  that  Word,   the  Promife 
of  the  Meffias  to  be  given  for  a  Light  to  the  Gentiles,  he 
underftands  &  concludes  it  to  be  implicitly  commanded 
him,to  turn  to  the  Gentiles.     So  thePromife  of  God  to  the 
Children  of  confederateBelievers,contains  a  virtualCom- 
mand  to  dedicate  them  to  him  in  holyBaptifm.  But  there 
is  a  Precept  alio  annexed  to  thePromife,which  binds  more 
plainly  ;  and  there  are  many  virtualCommands  inScrip- 
ture  for  baptizing  theChildren  of  Chrillian  Parents.  As, 
(i.)  In  God's  firft  Inftitution  of  an  initiating  Sea!  or 
Token  of  his  Covenant,  his  Command  to  Abraham^   to 
apply  it  to  his  natural  '^tti^^  and  alfo  to  the  Stranger  tliac 
is  not  of  his  S^zdi^  i.  e.  to  che  Gentile  Profelyte  and   his 
Children  (as  in  Gen.  17.  12.  Exod.  12.  48.  forecited).  is 
a  virtual  Command  to  Chriftian  Parents  to  bring  their 
Children  to   Baptifm.       Por     though     the   individual 
Rite  of  Circumcifion  be  chang'd,  and  Chrifl  h.as  inftitu- 
ted  Baptifm  for  the  fame  Ufe  and  End  in  his  Covenant; 
yet  the  Inftitution  of  an  initiating  Seal  of  the  Covenant 
between  God  and  Man,  being  of  the  Nature  of  moral 

S  pcfitivc 


25S         A  Defence  cf  the  Divine  Right         Chap.IV, 

pofitive  Precepts,  miifl:  continue  binding,  'till  it  be  the 
LegiHaror's  i'lealuie  to  i evoke  it  •,  &  Hnce  there  has  been 
no  Kevociition  or  Repeal  o*  it  to  this  Day,  tho  different 
Rites  have  been  iis'd  under  the  difierent  Forms  of  Admi- 
nifiration,  yet  the  Covenant  continuing  fubflantially  the 
fame,  under  the  feveral  Forms,  it  mult  be  underilood  to 
abide  in  Force  to  Believers  under  the  Gofpel,  who  are 
thereby  virtually  required  and  ccmimanded  to  apply  it 
to  Infant-Ghildren  in  ChnRian  Baptifm.  Or  to  fpeak 
inore  briefly  *,  An  exprefs  Command  once  given  by  God, 
and  never  iince  repeaicdjto  initiate  the  Infant-Seed  of  the 
Faithful  i-nto  the  Covmant  by  a  folemn  ourv/ard  Rite,  is 
a  virtual  Command  toChriftians  to  initiate  theirChildrcn 
into  God's  Covenant  by  Baptifn  •,  which  is  theRite  now 
inForce  by  the  Authority  otChrift  tcChriflians,for  thefam^e 
Purpofe,  tor  which  an  initiating  Rite  wasfirfl  inllituted. 
This  may  be  iliuftrated  by  a  parrellel  Cafe  of  the  Sab- 
bath. What  Commjand  have  we  Chriflians  to  keep  any 
Sabbath,  or  to  cbferve  the  Lord's-L'ay,  the  iirll  Day  of 
the  Week,  as  a  Sabbath  ?  In  the  firfi  Inflitution  of  aSab- 
ba'h,  the  jeventh  Day  was  fandified  tor  that  Purpofe  ; 
and  the  fourth  Commandn:ent  exprefly  enjoins  the  keep- 
ingH!leTeventh  Day  as  an  holy  Sabbath.  I  anfwer,7^he 
fourth  Commandment  expreHy  enjoining  the  fcventhDay 
to  be  kepi  as  a  Sabbath,  being  ot  the  Nature  of  moral 
pofitfve  Precepts,  the  Appointment  of  the  particularDay 
is  alterable,  at  the  Legillator's  Pleafure  ;  and  Chri{l,vvhd 
is  Lord  of  the  Si  bbath,  hath  for  good  Reafons  chang'd 
it  from  tliC  feventh  \tD  the  firftDay  of  the  Week,  but 
not  abolished  the  Subftince  of  the  Command,  which  is 
ru(;r,!l,and  confifls  in  cbferving  oneDay  in  feven,as  Holy 
to  God.  1  heretcre  the  fourth  Comjmandment  doth  flill 
vjrriially  oblige  Chriflians  to  keep  (he  Lord's-Day  as  an 
holy  Sabbath.  The  very  fame  Reafon  may  be  return'd 
to  the  Qiieftion,  What  Command  have  we  Chriflians  lor 
baptizing  cur  Infants  ?  r/z.  God  havirg  in  the  firfl  In- 
fiitutionof  an  initiating']  okcn  of  his  Covenant,  com- 
manded Abraham  to  apply  it  to  his  natural  Seed, and  alfo 

to 


Chap.  IV.  cf  Infant-Baptirm.  259 

to  the  Stranger  profely  ted,  and  to  his  natural  Seed  ;  tho* 
the  particularRite  ofCircumcilion  be  abrogated  byChrill, 
yet  he  has  not  abolifhed  the  Inilitution  of  an  initiatinc^^ 
Token  of  the  Covenant,  but  only  chang'd  it,  and  ap- 
pointed Baptifm  for. the  very  fame  Purpofe  ;  therefore 
the  Covenant  remaining  fubliantially  the  fame,  and  the 
Inftitution  of  the  faid  iniciadng  Token  remaining  fub- 
liantially the  fame,  the  exprefs  Command  of  God  to 
Abraham  to  initiate  his  Infant-Seed^  and  to  the  Profelyte 
to  initiate  his  Infant- Seed  byCircumcifion,  does  virtually 
oblige  Chriftians  to  initiate  their  Inl^ant  Seed  byBaptifm. 
That  as  the  Law  of  the  fourth  Commandment  concern- 
ing the  keeping  of  aSabbath,is  not  abrogated, but  chang'd 
by  Chrill  frorrj  the  feventh  to  the  firft  Day  of  theWeek, 
and  ftili  binds  in  the  Subftance  of  it  :  So  the  Law  con- 
cerning an  initiating  Sign  and  Seal  of  theCovenanc  is  noC 
abrogated  by  Chrift,  but  changed  Iropxi  Circumcifion  to 
Baprifm  •,  and  fbill  binds  as  to  theSubftance  of  it.  And  if 
Chrift  had  not  abolifhed  Circumcifion,  and  fubflituied 
Baptifm  as  the  initiatingToken  and  Seal  of  hisCovenanti 
we  had  been  oblig'd  to  circumcife  our  Children  to 
this  Day,  by  Vertue  of  that  Claufe  in  the  fird  InRitution, 
which  requires  theStranger  that  is  not  of  /jbrr.hanisS^ftLi 
to  be  circumcifed, and  alfo  to  circumcife  InfantMaleSeed, 
being  profelyted  to  ^^r^i^.-^^/z'sCovcnant  j  who  was  there- 
upon to  be  reputed  as  a  Na:ive  Ifraelire  wish  Refpe-ft  to 
all  Church- Privileges.  For  we  who  were  originallyG^;;- 
tiles^  by  coming  into  Covenant  with  the  God  of  Ifrael, 
are  no  more  Strangers  and  Foreigners^  hut  F ell ov) -Citizen 3 
with  the  Saints^  and  cf  the  Hcujhold  of  God,  Eph.  2,19. 
Even  as  if  Chrift  had  not  chang'd  the  feventh  into  the 
firft  Day  of  theWeek,  to  be  obferv'd  as  theChriftianSab- 
bath,  we  had  ftill  been  oblig'd  to  have  kept  the  feventh 
Day  as  an  holy  Sabbath,  by  Virtue  of  the  fourth  Com- 
mandment. Thus  it  may  appear,  that  God's  Inftitution 
and  exprefsCommand  forthcApplication  of  the  initiating 
Token  of  hisCovenant,  to  the  Infant-Seed  of  theChurch, 
does  virtually  oblige  Chriftians  to  baptize  theirChildren. 

S  z  (2).  Chrift 


2^0  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  IV. 

(2.)  Chrifl's  Command,  that  Infant-Children  fhould 
come  unto  him,  and  not  be  ibrbidden,  (Luk.  18.  15,  16  J 
is  a  virtual  Commiand  to  Chriftians  to  bring  their  Chil- 
dren to  his  Baptiim.     But  of  this  more  hereafter. 

(3.)  llie  CommiiTion  Chrift  gave  hisAportles  (Matth. 
28.)  to  dijciple  and  baptize  all  Nations^  is  an  implicit,  it 
not  an  exprefs  Command  to  baptize  the  Infants  of  the 
chridianiz'd Nations.  Chrift  gave  his  CommifTion  to  dif- 
ciplc  all  Nations  unto  him,  purfuant  to  the  ancient  Pre- 
clidion  and  Fromife  to  Ahrahayn^  of  blefiing-^?//  'Nations 
in  his  Seed;  and  it  this  CommifTion  was  as  extenfive  to 
the  Apoftles  and  fucceeding  Mmifters,  as  that  promifed 
BleiTing  ('f  ail  Nations,  (as  we  may  rationally  conclude  it 
was)  then  either  Infants  mufl  be  included  in  that  Com- 
miiTion, or  eife  all  dying  Infants  muft  be  left  to  perifh 
v/uhout  Remedy,  as  having  no  Interell  in  the  BleiTing  of 
Chrift  \  notwithftanding  Chrift  has  faid,  that  of  fuch  is 
the  Kingdom  of  God.  But  it  the  Infants  of  the  Nations, 
believing  in  Chrul,be  included  in, that  CommifTion,  they 
are,  at  leaft  implicitly  commanded  to  be  baptized. 

(4.)  The  Apoftle  Peter  s  Exhortation  and  Command 
to  the  Jews  to  be  baptized  upon  this  very  Ground,  be- 
caufe  the  Promife  is  to  them  ^  to  their  Children  (in  the 
iorecited  A5i.  2.  38,39.)  is  an  implicit,  if  not  exprefs 
Command  for  the  baptizing  thcirChildren  :  for  the  fame 
Ground  and  Reafon  of  Baptiim  is  made  to  extend  both 
to  Parents  oc  their  Children.  It  cannot  therefore  be  truly 
faid,  there  is  no  Command  or  Diredlion  in  the  Word  of 
God  for  I ntant- Baptiim  ;  for  a  virtual  or  implicit  Com- 
mand ot  Scripture  has  the  Force, and  ObHgation  ot  a  di- 
vrc  Command  on  ihe  Conicience  :  And  there  are  many 
i\ti>  ot  Worihip,of  which  there  are  no  Difputes  among 
Chriftians,  whether  they  are  warranted  by  any  divine 
Comrnand,and  yet  are  not  exprefiy  commanded, but  only 
implicitly.  What  Chrift ian  makes  any  Doubt,  that  pub- 
lick  VVorihip  is  a  commanded  Duty  y  yet  where  is  there 
any  formal  exprefb  Command  for  it  in'  the  New-Tefta- 
ment?  that  which  com.es  neareft  to  fuchCommand,isthac 

Cauliai 


Chap.  IV.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  261 

Caution  of  the  Apoftle,  Heh.  10.  25.  Not  forfaking  the 
ajfembling  of  our  f elves  together.  But  this  is  aNegativePre- 
cept  :  theAiilrmative  requiring  us  to  affemble  our  felves 
for  pubHck  divine  WorPaipjis  but  an  implicitCommand. 
Yet  even  fuch  Commands  are  a  fajBcient  Warrant  tor 
the  PraClice,  and  infer  an  ObHgation  on  Men's  Confci- 
cnces  to  rhe  Obfervation  thereof. 

But  thus  we  have  feen,  how  theArgument  {lands  from 
the  Covenant  for  the  divineRight  of  Iniani-Baprifm.  If 
both  thefe  Fropoiitions  be  true,  vi-z.  Thac  a  Co  crnant- 
Intereft  gives  a  Right  to  the  Seal  \  and  that  the  in i ants 
of  BeUevers  have  fuch  a  Covenant-Interell;,  both  which 
I  have  proved  at  large  -,  I  can  fee  nothing  more  necefiary 
to  fettle  the  Mind  and  Confcience  of  any  ibbcr  unpreju- 
dic'd  Perfon  in  the  Perfuafion  of  the  Warrantablenefs  of 
Infant-Baptifm.  And  Chrill's  Infiitution  oi  Baptifm  for 
the  initiating  Token  of  his  Covenant,  induces  an  Obliga- 
tion on  Chriftians  to  offer  up  their  infant-Children  with 
themfeives  to  God  in  this  Way  of  his  Appointment. 
There  are  divers  other  Ways  of  proving  Infanis  Plight  to 
Baptifm,  and  that  very  fohdly  :  but  thisArgument  from 
the  Covenant,  which  takes  in  all  or  mofb  of  therefbjhas 
nev^er  been  confuted,  and  I  believe  never  can  be.  What- 
ever Cavils  orObjeftions  have  been  raifed  againft  it,they 
have  appear'd  trifling  &  impertinent.  The  feveralTexts 
of  Scripture  that  ferve  to  corroborate  and  coniirm  this 
Argument,  will  be  ccnfider'd  and  vindicated  in  the  fol- 
lowing Chapter. 

I  am  now  to  examine  what  Dr.  Gill  has  to  fay  in  Op- 
position to  thisArgument  from  theCovenant.  And  there 
will  fcarce  need  any  Thing  more  for  the  Refutation  of 
ail  his  Objections,  than  our  refledling  on  the  foregoing 
Obfervations  •,  by  which  the  mod  Material  have  beeii 
fully  obviated. 

//>y?.  He  enters  on  aDifcufTionoftheQiieilion,  ''Wlie- 
^'  ther  the  Covenant  made  with  ^braham^  Gen.  17.  was 
''  theCovenant  of  Grace,  the  pureCovenantof  Grace,in 
^'  Didinflion  from  the  Covenant  of  Works."  Pag.  44. 

S  3  This 


26 z         A  Defence  of  the  Divine  R'tghi         Chap.  IV. 

This,he  rigluly  obfcrves,  is  "the  leading  Enquiry":  for  if 
this  Enquiry  be  refolved  in  the  Affirmative,  as  I  have 
prov'd  it  ought  to  be,  then  it  will  follow,  x\-\?iX  Abraham^ 
Seed  were  i^iven  with  him  into  aCovenantot  Grace,&  the 
Covenant  being  euea'dally  and  invariably  the  fame  under 
every  z-dminiftration,  it  will  hence  foHow,that  Believers 
and  their  Seed  under  the  Gofpel  are  taken  into  the  Cove- 
nant of  Gr.^ce  -,  and  being  in  the  Covenant  of 'Grace,  it 
will  alfo  follow, that  the  Infant-Seed  oi  Believers  have  a 
Right  to  the  initiating  Sign  and  Seal,  as  Abraham's  Seed 
had  to  that  inllituied  Token  of  the  Covenant,  Circum- 
cifion.  But  what  fays  our  Author  to  this  leadingQueflion  ? 
He  jiiys,  P.  45.  "  It  m-uft  be  deny'd  that  it  was  the  Co- 
^'  venant  of  Grace."  It  mujl^  becaufe  elfe  the  Caufe  of 
Antipnedobaptifm  mu§i  fall  to  theGround.  But  why  muil 
it  be  dei.y'd  ? 

(i.)  He  fays  {ibid.)  f'  It  is  never  called  the  Covenant 
of  Grace."  Let  him  tell  us  then,  what  it  is  he' calls  by 
the  Name  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace:  and  I  will  prove  by 
the  fameReafon  that  it  cannot  be  the  Covenant  of  Grace  ; 
for  it  is  no  where  in  Scripture  fo  called  in  exprefsTermSo 
But  what  Divines  have  generally  called  a  Covenant  of 
Grace,  agrees  to  the  Covenant  with  Abraham.,  or  to  no 
Covenant  miCntioned  in  the  Word  of  God.  But  when  he 
fays,  '*  It  is  not  called  by  any  Name  v/hich  fnews  it  to  be 
fo,"  he  is  flrangely  miftaken  :  Strange  indeed.  That  a 
Man  v/ho  talks  fo  much  of  a  Covenant  of  Grace  bein<^ 
made  with  Men  from  Everlafling,  fhould  not  be  able  to 
difcern  the  Character  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace  in  this 
made  v^ixhAbrahmn.,  v/hich  God  calls  an  everlafling  Cove- 
nant \  which  I  have  fiiewcd  to  be  the  Property  of  the 
Covenant  of  Grace,  tho  not  in  his  midaken  Scnfc,  yet  I 
can  find  no  other  Pretence  for  that  Miffake  in  Scripture, 
than  the  Covenant  of  Grace  being  fo  often  called  an  Ever- 
Infling  Covenant.  But  he  fays,  ''  It  is  called  the  Cove- 
''  nantof  Circumcifion,  Achy^^.'''  But  to  what  Purpofe 
is  this  objected  ?  Is  it  becaule  the  Covenant  of  Grace 
can  admit  no  Token  cr  Seal  annexed  to  it?  Or  becauf- 

God 


Chap.  IV.  of  Infant- Baptifm.  263 

God  might  not  appoint  Circumcifion  to  be  the  Token 
of  thatCovenant  ?  He  fay^,  "  Circamcifion,  and  Grace 
''  are  oppos'd  to  one  another;  Circumcilion  is  a  Work  of 
*'  the  Law,  which  they  t'lat  fought   to   be  juilify'd  by, 
"  feil  froniGrace.G^/.  5.  2,  3, 4.''  Anfw.  i.  Here's  a  Fal- 
lacy ;  Circumcifion  was    never  oppos'd  to  Grace,  while 
that  Ordinance  was  in  Force,  during  the  whole  CEcono- 
my  of  the  Old-Teftament.  But  there  was  infinite  Grace 
fhew'd  to  Abraham  and  his  Seed  in  the  Covenant  of  Cir- 
cumcifionjtill  theComing  ofChriil  &  hisDeath, (wherein 
^11  thofe  ancient  Types,  and  bloody  Rites  were  falnlled 
and  aboliTn'd)  and  the  fetting  up  the  New-Covenant  Ad- 
miniflration.     The  carnal  Jews  indeed  underilood  and 
adhered  to  Circumcifion,  and  the  other  legal  Obfcrvan- 
ces,  as  a  Sort  of  Covenant  of  Works,contrary  to  the  De- 
fign  of  their  Inftitution,  and  fo  excluded  thenifelves  from 
the  Grace  of  Chrift.  And  this  was  their  LtaiError,  vvhich 
theProphets  &  Apofties  conftantly  warned  them  againft; 
and  when  the  New-Covenant  was  confirm'cl  in  theBlood 
of  Chrift,   and  preached  by  the  Apofties,  the  believing 
Jews  were  for  keeping  up  Circumcifion,  and  the  Rites 
of  Mofes  his  Law,    in  Conjunflion  with   the  Gofpel  of 
Chrift  :  Therefore   thefe   Judaizers,   the   Apoille  very 
fmartly,as  well  as  juftly  reproves  in  feveral  of  hisEpiftles, 
particularly  in  that  to  the  Galaiiai^.s^  for  theirFondnefs  of 
retaining  thofe  antiquated  Rites,  Vv^hich  pointed  atChrift 
^p  come,  and  Hied  his  Blood  •,  for  in  {i)   doing  they  im- 
plicitly denied  thatChrill  had  already  come,and  virtually 
renounced  the  Benefit  of  Redemption  in  his  Blood,  and 
in  Eficift,  Subverted  the  whole  Gofpel :  And  fo,  their  ad- 
hering to  the  Ordinances  of  the  Old-Teftament  (v/l^ich 
were  of  great  Ufe  to  the  Church  before,  in  Subferviency 
to  the  Covenant  of  Grace)  was  inconfiftent  with  their 
Participation  of  the  Grace  of  the  New-Covenant,  v/hich 
is  all  that  is  proved  fi'om  GaL  5.  2,  3,  4.    But  v;hatdoes 
all  this  fignify,  to  prove  that  the  Covenant  vv^ith  Abraham 
was  not  a  Covenant  of  Grace  ?  Circumcifion  in  thePlace 
it  had  in  AhYahim'%  Covenant  by  divine  Inftitution,  had 

&  4  an 


2^4  A  Dsjence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  IV. 

an  Evangelical  Meaning,  and  Intention,  tho'  it  was  per- 
verted by  the  carnal  Jews  to  a  contrary  Purpofe.  It  fig- 
nified  Chrift  to  come  of  Abraham's  Seed,  the  fliedding  of 
his  Blood,  as  alio  Regeneration,  the  Circumcirion  ot  the 
l:ieart,tneMorti[icaiion  ot  the  Flefli,&  was  OiSign^cwdSeal 
of  the  RightSDufrfs  of  Faith.  Rom.  4.  11.  And  what  Re- 
lation does  all  this  hear  ro  aCovenant  o\  Works  ?  Again, 
2.  In  laying,  Circumcifton  is  a  IVork  of  the  Law^  mean- 
ing the  Law  of  Mofes^  (which,  I  imagine,  he  takes  for  a 
Covenant  of  Works,and  fo  wou'd  prove  Circumcifion  to 
belong  to  that  Covenant)  he  is  under  a  plain  Miftake  : 
For  tho'  Circumcifion  was  ad(ipted  i.ito  x\\tM(faic  Con- 
flitution,yet  it  was  not  originally  an  Inftitution  ot  Mofes  \ 
but  God  appointed  it  in  his  Covenant  with  the  Fathers 
of  the  Jewifn  Church,  Ahrahamjfaac^  and  Jacobs  to  be 
a  Sign  and  Seal  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace.  Our  Saviour 
tells  us,  that  Circumcifion  is  not  of  Mofes^  but  of  the  Fa- 
thers'^ Joh.   7.  22.  So  feeble  is  his  firft  Reafon. 

(2.)  Another  Reafon  he  gives  is  (Ibid.)  "  It  feems 
*'  rather  to  be  a  Covenant  of  Works,  than  of  Grace, 
"  tor  this  v/as  a  Covenant  to  be  kept  by  Men  -,  Abra- 
"  ham  was  to  keep  it,  and  his  Seed. — Something  was  to 
"  be  done  by  them." —  By  which,  it  feems,  his  Notion 
is,  that  a  Covenant  given  by  God  to  be  kept  by  Men,  is 
not  a  Covenant  of  Grace,but  of  Works  :  then  the  Rea- 
fon muft  be,  either  i .  That  theCovenant  of  Grace  which 
God  has  given  unto  Men,  is  fuch  as  cannot  be  kept  by 
them  :  which  retleds  on  theWiiHom,Juftice  &  Goodnefs 
of  God,  in  giving  Man  fuch  a  Covenant  as  is  impoffible 
for  him  to  keep.  Or  elfe  2.  That  in  this  Covenant  of 
Grace  God  has  made  with  Men,  there  is  nothing  to  be 
done  on  Men's  Part,  no  Duties  required  of  them  -,  which 
is  contrar-y  to  Scripture,  which  teaches,  that  theCovenant 
of  Grace  may,  and  ought  to  be  kept  by  Men  ;  and  that 
the  Beneiits  of  it  belong  only  to  the  fincere  Obfervers  of 
it  i  and  that  it  is  not  inconfiftent  with  the  Grace  &  Mer- 
ry of  God  in  his  federal  Tranfad"ons  with  Men,  ro  re- 
quire fcmethiiig  to  be  done  on  their  Part,that  they  might 

keep 


Chap.  IV.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  265 

keep  his  Covenanr.  Docs  not  theScripture  fay  ?  Pral.25. 
^.o.  All  the  Paths  of  the  Lord  are  Merc)\  and  Truths  unto 
Juch  as  keep  his  Covenant.  And  again,  Pfal.  103.17,18. 
'The  Mercy  of  the  Lord  is  from  Everlafiing  to  Everlafiing 
upon  them  that  fea^^  him^and  his  Righteoufnefs  untoChildrens 
Children^  unto  fuch  as  keep  his  Covenant.  Do  thefe  Ex- 
preflions  "  favour  nothing  of  a  Covenant  of  Grace  ?'* 
Does  the  Covenant  of  Works  fpeak  a  Word  of  Mercy  to 
the  Obfervers  of  it  ?  Is  not,  the  Mercy  of  the  Lord  from 
Everlafiing  to  Everlafiing  to  fuch  as  keep  his  Covenant.,  a 
Promife  pecuhar  to  the  Covenant  of  Grace  ?  And  is  this 
fuch  a  Covenant  as  is  not  to  be  "kept  by  Man"  ?  How 
unfcriptural  a  Notion  is  this,  as  well  as  abfurd  !  'Tis 
contrary  to  the  Conditionahty  of  theCovenant  of  Grace, 
which  has  been  folidiy  proved,  that  is  to  fay,  that  there 
are  Duties,  and  Conditions  to  be  perform'd  on  our  Part, 
on  which,  the  Privik^ges  of  the  Covenant  are  fufpended. 
But  are  Men  to  be  toki,  that  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace, 
God  requires  nothing  to  be  done  by  them,  that  there  are 
no  Terms  enjoin'd,  no  Precepts  to  be  obferv'd  ?  I  am 
fure,  on  good  Scripture  Grounds,  whatever  Dr.  Gill  ima- 
gines, no  Miniiler  of  the  Gofpel  can  be  faithful  to  the 
Souls  of  Men,  who  does  not  tell  them, that  theCovenant 
of  Grace  muit  be  entered  into,  by  an  hearty  Confent  to 
the  Propofitions  and  Terms  ot  it,  and  kept  too,  in  fome 
Me  afu  re  Of  fin  cere  Obedience;  otherwife  they  frame  a 
Notion  of  aCovenant  on  vv^hich  they  can  have  no  ground- 
edHope  of  Salvation.  David  faith,  Pfal.  1 19. 166.  Lord^ 
I  have  hoped  for  thy  Salvation.,  and  have  done  thyCommand- 
ments.  Did  David  then  expedl  to  be  faved  by  a  Cove- 
nant of  Works  ?  Did  he  not  ground  his  Salvation  en- 
tirely on  the  everlafiing  Covenant  God  had  made  vcith  him., 
ordered  in  all  Things ^and fure  ?  2Sam.23.5.  Was  not  this 
a  pure  Covenant  of  Grace  }  The  Salvation  whereof  yet 
he  could  not  expedl  withoutdoingGod'sCommandments. 
(  f )  Me  fays, P.  46.  "  This  was  aCovenant  that  might 
"  be  brcken, — but  theCovenant  ot  Grace  cannot  be  bro- 
l^  ken."  yf,'7yl:c?.TheCovenant  of  Grace  being  conditio- 
nal 


266  A  Defence  of  the  Bivine  Right  Chap.  IV. 

nal,  as  it  may  be  kept  by  Men,  fo  it  may  be  broken  by 
Men.  I  have  before  Ihevved,  in  what  Rcfpedts  the  Co- 
venant of  Grace  may  be  broken,  and  in  what  it  fhall  not. 
God  will  not  break  it,  on  his  Fart  -,  which  is  all  that  he 

E roves  from  Pfal.  89.  34.  And  granting  that  it  fhali  not 
e  totally,  and  finally  dilfolv'd  with  Relpecl  toBelievers, 
who  are  Subjeds  of  its  faving  Efficacy  •,  yet  by  thofs 
that  are  in  the  Covenant  in  Regard  only  of  the  Bonds  of 
its  outward  Adminiftration,  it  may  be,  and  often  is  bro- 
ken, and  wholly  made  void  by  theirApoftacy  &  Perfidy  ; 
and  even  true  Believers,  in  the  Examination  of  ftrid 
Jufticc,  would  be  found  often  guilty  of  breaking  Cove- 
nant with  God  :  and  it  is  owing  only  to  his  free  Mercy, 
and  Grace,  that  he  doth  not  break  Covenant  with  them, 
and  caft  them  off  everlaftingly.  His  Conceit  that  the 
Covenant  cannot  be  broken,  without  anyExplanation,  or 
Rcftridion,  tends  to  nourilh  Profefibrs  in  Security. 

(4.)  AnotherReafonhe  offers,  is,  "There  were  tempo- 
"  ral  Things  promifed  in  thisCovenant."  (ibid,)  There- 
fore it  was  not  theCovenant  of  Grace  •,  why  not  ?  Does  not 
the  Covenant  extend  to  the  whole  Man,  Body,  as  well  as 
Soul  ?  And  is  not  the  Lord  for  the  Body ,  in  its  dueSubor- 
dination  ^  [iCor.  6.  13 J  How  elfe  could  our  Saviour 
argue  the  RefurredUon  of  the  Bodies  of  the  Patriarchs 
from  God's  Covenant  Title,  /  am  the  God  of  Abraham, 
&c.  And  doubtlefs  temporal  Things  concern  theBody  : 
and  God  would  have  his  People  truft  in  him  for  thefe 
Things,that  all  his  Difpenfaions  to  them  in  this  V/orld, 
might  be  Mercy  and  Truth  (Pfal.  25.  10.)  i.  e.  Mercy 
according  to  the  Promife.  And  are  not  temporal  Things 
contain'd  in  the  Goipel-Covenant  ?  And  will  this  prove, 
that  it  cannot  theretore  be  a  Covenant  of  Grace  ?  Doth 
not  the  Apodle  tell  us,  that  now  under  die  Gofpel,  God- 
linefs  hath  the  Promife  of  the  Life  that  now  is,  as  well  as 
of //^^/  which  IS  to  come?  iTim.  4.8.  And  that  they  that 
are  Chriil's  have  aNew-Covenant  Right  to  thcCrearures, 
andThingsof  thisWorld  .^  i-Cor.^.  21,22,23.  MThings 
creycurs^whetherthcWcrld^orJJfe.o.  Death xrihingsp-efcnt^ 

er 


Chap.  IV.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  267 

or  'Things  to  come^  &c.  Tho'  the  BleiTmg  ot  Jlbraham\ 
Race,and  the  PolTeflion  of  Canaan,  were  promiied  in  die 
Covenant  with  him,  yet  thefe  are  to  be  conceiv'd  of,  but 
in  a  lecondary  Rcfped,  and  as  additional  to  the  main 
BleiTing  of  the  Covenant,  I  will  he  thy  God  ;  as  ail  tem- 
poral Things  are  now  promifed  in  theCovenantof  Chrift. 
Math.  6.33.  One  would  think  our  Author  fcarce  awake, 
when  he  im::igin''d  this  to  be  a  Reafon  againft  the  Cove- 
nant with  Ahraham^  its  being  the  Covenant  of  Grace. 

(^5.)  He  inftances  in  Ijhmael  &  Ejau^  "  who  v/ere  in- 
"  eluded  in  thisCovenant  made  ^mihAbraham^'  of  whom 
he  fays,  ''  It  cannot  be  tho't  they  were  in  the  Covenant 
*'  of  Grace."  Anfw.  11  he  had  attended  to  theDiftinclion 
Cbefore  laid  down,  and  confirmed  by  Scripture)  of  being 
in  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  either  in  Regard  of  its  exter- 
nal AdrniniftraLlon,  or  inRegard  of  its  fpiritual  Efficacy, 
he  had  been  under  no  Diincuky  of  conceiving  how  thefe 
Perfons  might  be  truly  faid  to  be  in  the  Covenant  of 
Grace.  In  the  former  Refped',both  Jjlrmael  &  Efau  were 
in  the  Covenant  of  Grace  outwardly  adminiiler'd  in  the 
Families  of  the  godly  Patriarchs  ;  v;hether  they  were  in 
it,  in  Refped  of  its  fpiritual  Etiicacy,  is  not  fo  certain. 
However,  there  is  no  good  Evidence  to  the  contrary.  On 
the  other  Hand,  he  indances  in  fome  o^  Aoraham\  Pre- 
deceflbrs,  and  Contemporaries,  fuch  zsArphaxad,  Melchi- 
zedek,  and  Lot^  who  (he  fays)  "  were  not  in  this  Cove- 
"  nant,  yet  were  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace."  i^ibid.)  Let 
us  fee  the  Force  of  this  Reafoning.  The  Covenant  with 
/ibraham  was  not  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  becaufc:  there 
Wire  fome  good  Men  living  about  that  Time,  who  were 
in  the  Covenant  of  Grace  under  a  former  AdnjiniRration, 
that  were  not  taken  into  this  Particular  nev/  Adminilira- 
tion  of  it,  begun  in  the  Family  o{  Abraham  :  hence  he 
concludes  ("and  it  is  furprizing  that  he  conckidcs  in  fo 
ftrong  I^erms  from  fo  weak  a  RealonJ  "Whereiore  this 
*'  cin  never  be  reckoned  the  pure  Covenant  of  Grace." 
D)d  the  AutiKvr  of  the  Dialogue  ever  put  any  Tiling  in 
the  Mi^th  of  his  weakNeighbour  more  mean  &  trining, 

(as 


268  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Cwap.  IV. 

(as  Dr.  Gill  complainsj  in  Defence  of  the  Principles  of 
Antipaedobaptifm  ?  I  find,  indeed,  more  Words  in  Dr. 
G/7/,  but  rather  lefs  Strength  in  moft  of  his  Objeftions. 

His  6th  &  7th  Reafons  have  been  fully  obviated,  viz, 
*'  That  theCovenant  ot  Grace  was  only  made  withChrifl, 
*'  as  the  federal  Head  of  it  ;  and  that  the  Covenant  of 
*'  Grace  was  made  with  Chrift,  and  with  his  People,  as 
*'  confider'd  in  Him, from  Everlafting."  I  have  clearly 
fhewed,  and  by  diversScripture- Reafons  fully  proved,that 
the  Covenant  made  with  Chrift  the  Mediator,before  the 
Foundation  of  the  World,  concerning  theRedemption  of 
fallen  Man,whateverTerm  be  given  it,  is  intirely  diftindl 
from  that  which  is  called  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  made 
with  his  People  in  Time  :  and  have  alfo  fhewed  the  Ab- 
furdity  and  ImpolTibility  of  a  Covenant  being  made  with 
any  of  Mankind  from  Eternity.  I  fhall  only  make  two 
or  three  Remarks  on  what  occurs  under  hisy^.v/^Objedtion. 
I.  He  reckons  it  an  Abfurdity,  that  the  Covenant  of 
Grace  fhould  be  faid  to  be  "  made  with  Abraham  as  the 
*'  federal  Head  of  his  natural  &  fpiritual  Seed,  Jews  and 
GentiJes\^  for,  faith  he,  "  Then  there  muft  be  twoHeads 
*'  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace."  I  conceive  it  an  Impro- 
priety,to  fay,  \.\\2it  Abrahayn  was  the  Head  of  the  Covenant 
of  Grace  :  Nor  is  it  imply'd  in  God's  making  thac  Co- 
venant with  him,  and  his  Seed,  both  natural  &  adopted  •, 
but  that  Abraham  fliould  be  called  the  Head  of  the  con- 
federate People  *,  not  as  the  Z/^-^i  fignifies  either  anHead 
of  Government,  or  an  Plead  of  Communication, which  is 
proper  to  Chrilf  -,  but  as  Head  fignifies  the  chief,  or  firft 
in  order  of  that  Adminiftration  of  the  Covenant,  and  the 
great  Pattern  ^z  Precedent  to  the  Faithful  in  ail  fucceed^ 
ing  Ages  ;  I  fee  no  more  Abfurdity  in  this,  than  his  be- 
ing calTd  in  Scripture,  the  Father  cf  them  that  believe  : 
for  as  both  thefe  Terms  may  be  differently  explained, the 
confederate  People  rnay  as  properly  be  faid  to  have  two 
Heads  as  two  Fathers.  2.  tie  adds,  "  No  meer  Man  is 
*'  capableot  Covciianting  with  God, —  for  what  has  Man 
''  £0  rei.lipi'latc  wifh  God  r"     By  which    (.^lefliOn    he 

fcems 


Chap.  iV.  of  Infant  Bapttrm.  269 

fecms  to  imagine,  that  a  Reflipulation  on  Man's  Part  im- 
plies fomething  equivalent  to  God*sPromire,&  that  there 
can  be  no  Covenant  between  God  and  Man,  unlefs  Man 
could  otFer  unto  God  an  Equivalent.  I  fliouli  be  forry 
to  have  any  Reader  who  fhould  think,  that  fuch  undi- 
gelled  Stuff  ncededjOr  deferved  a  ferious  Reply  ;  for  this 
Notion  of  his  militates  againft  plain  Fad  •,  to  what  Pur- 
pofe,  elfe,  is  it  that  the  Scripture  fpeaks  fo  often  of  a  Co- 
venant entred  into  between  God  and  Man  ?  But  he  for- 
gets we  are  fpeaking  of  a  Covenant  of  Grace^'m  whichGod 
is  pleafed  moil  gracioufly  to  condefcend  to  enter  intoAr- 
ticles  and  Stipulations  with  Man  for  his  own  Right.  Or 
if  he  does  not  mean  the  Offer  of  anEquivalent  by  Man's 
Reftipulaiing^  common  Senfe  didates,  every  Man  hath 
wherewithal  to  reftipulate,  viz.  Himfelf,  Soul  and  Body, 
in  all  his  Capacities,  to  beemploy'din  the  Service  of  his 
Creator.  Rom.  6.13.  ^  ii.  i.  Which  is  all  thatGod  re- 
quires,and  which  he  is  gracioufly  pleafed  to  accept..  They 
Jhall  he  to  me  a  People.  3.  He  tells  us  what  he  conceives 
is  meant  by  the  Scriptures  fpeaking  fo  often  of  a  Cove- 
nant's being  made  with  Men.  "  When  atanyTime  we 
read,  (fays  he,  P.47.)  of  a  Covenant  of  Grace  made  with 
*'  particular  Perfons,  it  mufb  always  be  underffood  of 
"  making  it  manileflto  them,  of  a  Revelation  of  theCo- 
"  venant,  &  of  anApplication  of  the  Covenant-Bleffings 
"  to  them."  What  an  odd  Conceit  is  this  of  any  Cove- 
nant made  with  Men,without  any  Confent  orAgreemenc 
on  their  Part !  The  Covenant  of  Grace  can  in  no  Pro- 
priety of  Senfe  be  faid  to  be  m.ade  with  any  Perfon,only 
by  the  iVlanifeRation  of  it,  or  by  the  Application  of  it's 
Bleffings.  Firfty  It  cannot  be  made  only  by  the  Mani- 
ieftation  of  it  :  which  in  the  Nature  of  the  Thing  goes 
before  the  making  of  it  ;  and  it  may  be,  and  often  has 
been  revealed  and  manifefted  to  many,  with  whom  it  ne- 
ver has  been  made.  Chrifl  is  called  the  Mejfenger  of  the 
Covenant^  Mai.  3.1.  And  was  he  not  the  Meffenger  of 
the  Covenant  ot  Grace  ?  And  was  it  not  theTendency 
and  Scope  of  all  his  Sermons  and  Difcourfes  recorded  in 

the 


IJO         A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap. IV*. 

the  Gofpel,  to  reveal  and  piiblifli  this  Covenant  to  the 
Jews,  16  open  the  Do(51iine  of  his  New-Covenant,to fettle 
the  Terms,and  offer  the  Privileges  of  it  to  that  People  ? 
Was  this  Covenant  then  made  with  the  Jews,  when  ic 
was  thus  revealed  and  maniieiled  to  them  (even  byChrill 
himfelO  while  at  the  (ameTime  they  were  prejudiced  a- 
o-ainft  his  Perfon  and  Dodrine  ?  The  Evangeliil  tells 
us,  Joh.  I.I  I.  He  came  to  his  own,  and  bis  own  received 
him  not.  They  reru(^:.'d  his  Meffage,  agreed  not  to  his 
Terms,  would  not  believe  in  him  -,  therefore,  with  them, 
furely,  no  Covenant  of  Grace  was  made,notwithn:anding 
the  Revelation  of  it.  But  thofe  with  whom  this  Cove- 
nant was  made, were  fuch  as  complied  with  theConditiori 
of  it,  thofe  that  believed  in  his  Nmne,  f.ii.  and  not  only 
had  it  manifefted  to  them.  Oi  if  he  means  a  fpirirual 
Manifeftation  of  the  Covenant,  by  imvard  Illumination 
of  the  Mind,  even  this, in  theorder  of  Nature,goes  before 
Covenanting.  Men  mud  under ^a-nd  with  their  Hearts^ 
SLnd  (o  i?e  converted.  Mat.  13.  15.  They  mull confent, 
with  a  prevailing  Inclii-iation  of  their  WiliS  (implied  in 
their  Converfion)  as  well  as  underfland  with  theirHearts, 
before  anyCovenant  can  be  properly  laid  to  be  made  with 
them.  What  ilrahgeDoctrine  does  thisMan  fet  forth,  in 
aiferting  the  Covenant  of  Grace  to  be  made  with  particu- 
lar Perfons,  when  it  is  but  nianifefted  to  them  ?  Yea,and 
how  datigerous  too,  teaching  Men  to  believe,'  they  are  in 
the  Covenant  of  Grace,  only  becaufeof  its  Manifeftation 
to  them  !  Nor  Secondly^  Can  it  .with  any  Propriety  be 
faid  to  be  made  with  any  one,  by  the  Application  of  the 
BlefTuigs  of  it  ;  which  prc-fuppofes  the  making  of  the 
Covenant,  or  a  previous  Agreement  to  the  Propofition 
and  Terms  of  it.  What  is  Prefumpfion,but  a  Man's  Ap- 
plication of  the  Bleffings  of  the  Covenant  to  himfelf,  be- 
fore,or  without  the  Confent  of  hisWill  to  the  Conditions 
required  ^  What  he  talks  of"  an  Original  Contradl  with 
particularPerfons,"  {ihid,)  I  pretend  not  to  aflert  any  fuch 
'Jhing  ;  unlefs  the  Covenant  made  Vvith  the  firftP.arents, 
or  Headi*  of  a  godly  Race  n^ay  be  fj  term'd.    But  God's 

Promife 


Chap.  IV.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  271 

Promife  annex'd  to  his  Command,  makes  up  the  whole 
Matter  of  his  Covenant  with  r^en  j  and  leaves  no  Room 
for  Men  to  indent  with  God,  by  putting  any  Articles,or 
Exceptions  into  his  Covenant  fas  isufual  with  contra6l- 
ing  Parties  among  Men)  and  their  Confent  and  Agree- 
ment is  requifire  to  the  FormaUty  of  this  Covenant.  Plis 
faying  "I'he  original  Contradt  was  made  with  them  only 
*'  inChrift,"  is  but  a  Repetition  of  his  form.er  Error,in 
confounding  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  with  that  of  Re- 
demption, which  I  have  before  fufficiently  refuted. 

(8.)  OurAuthor  goes  on  to  fay  in  the  laftPlace,  P.48. 
"  It  will  be  allowed  that  the  Covenant  made  withyf^^r^- 
"  hayn  v/as  a  peculiar  Covenant,  fuch  as  was  never  made 
'^  with  any  before  or  fince."  /infw.  That  there  were 
fome  fpecial  Favours  and  Prerogatives  granted  by  God 
to  /ibraham-,  in  his  Tranfadions  with  him  ♦,  And 
that  the  Covenant  made  with  him  had  a  particular  Form 
of  Adminiftration,  has  been  allowed  already  ;  but  that 
this  Covenant,  in  the  main  EiTentials  of  it,  was  peculiar 
to  him,  fuch  as  was  never  made  with  any  before^  or  fince^ 
will  not  be  allowed  ♦,  being  contrary  to  the  Tenor  of 
many  plain  Texts  of  Scripture,  whereby  I  have  proved 
particularly,  that  the  Covenant  made  with  Abraham  is 
the  fame  Covenant  of  Grace,  for  Subftance,  with  thac 
v/hich  fubfifts  under  the  Gofpel-Adminiftration.  And 
therefore  it  is  certain,  that  the  fame  Covenant  has  been 
made  fmcc  the  Time  of  Abraham^  both  with  the  natural 
Seed  of  i/r^f/, and  v/ith  the  New-Teflament  Ifrael.  And 
that  the  fame  Covenant  was  made  with  thePatriarchs  be- 
fore the  Time  of  Abraham,  is  eafily  proved.  TheCove- 
nant  with  Abraham  was  a  Covenant  of  the  Eightecufnefs 
of  Faith.  For  fo  the  Apoftle  interprets  and  defcribes 
the  Covenant  of  which  Circumxifion  was  the  Token  and 
Seal.  Rora.  4.  1 1.  And  the  Covenant  wiihNoah  hath  the 
fame  Interpretation  and  Defcription  given  of  it  in  the 
New  Tedament,  lieb.  1 1.  7.  By  Faith  Noah —  became 
Heir  cf  the  Right ccufnefs  which  is  of  Faith ;  and  that  ic 
was  in  Being  before  theDaysof  Noah^\i\%  being  called  the 

Heir 


272  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  IV. 

Heir  of  this  RighteoufnefsjintimareshisSucceflion  to  it  in 
the  Line  of  the  Church  :  And  indeed  the  fameCovenanc 
of  Grace  has  always  been  the  Church's  Heritage  from 
the  Beginning.  But  how  does  it  appear,  that  this  Cove- 
nant was  pecuhar  to  Abraham  ?  He  fays  {ibid.)  "  It  was 
"  of  a  mixed  Kind,  that  it  had  Promifes  and  Mercies  in 
*'  it  of  a  temporal  Nature,to  his  natural  Seed  ;  &  others 
*'  of  a  fpiritualSort,to  his  fpiritual  Sczd^.  '^Anfw.  Then 
the  Covenant  of  Grace  is  of  a  7nixsd  Kind  •,  for  I  have  be- 
fore prov'd,thac  the  Promifes  of  temporal  Mercies  belong 
to  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  (  under  his  fourth  Plead  of 
Reafons,  which  is  the  fam,e  in  Effecft;  with  this  ;  and  the 
fameAnfv/er  may  be  returned  to  it.)So  that  if  this  proves 
any  Thing  to  his  Purpofe,it  will  prove  too  much  :  That 
there  is  no  Covenant  of  Grace  at  ail  extant  in  Scripture. 
But  what  a  ifrange  Diflribution  does  he  here  make  of 
the  promifed  Mercies  of  the  Covenant  ?  Thofe  of  a  tem- 
poral Nature  belonging  to  his  natural  Seedy  thofe  of  a  jpri- 
tual  Sort  to  his  fpiritual  Seed.  Were  there  not  many  of 
thofe  whom  he  calls  his  fpiritual  Seed. among  his  natural 
Seed  ^  And  did  not  fpiritual  Promifes  belong  to  them, 
becaufe  they  were  his  natural  Seed  ?  Again,  did  not  tem- 
poral Promifes  and  Mercies  belong  to  his  fpiritual  Seed, 
as  v/ell  as  natural  ?  Uniefs  hy  fpiritual  he  means  difem- 
bodied  Spirits.  Did  not  God  take  the  v/hole  Man  inco 
Covenant,  Body  as  well  as  Soul, and  therefore  particularly 
fet  the  Mark  of  his  Covenant  on  the  Body  ?  And  is  the 
Body  left  unprovided  of  temporal  Mercies  .^  Did  not  pi- 
ous Jacob  ib  interpret  the  Covenant,  as  the  Ground  of 
hirTIope  and  Plea  for  temporal  Mercies  ^,  Gen. 2^.20^21. 
WhatWarrant  then  had  our  Author  for  this  Diflribution  ? 
Yet  this  he  makes  the  Ground  of  his  following  Inquiry. 
But  here  again  let  me  oblei  ve,  the  Promifes  of  a  tempo- 
ral Nature  in  this  Covenant,  he  fays,  "  are  more  nume- 
rous, clear  and  diftind,"  and  feems  to  thruft  down  the 
fpiritual  Promifes  into  a  lower  Clafs,  as  they  ftand  in 
Abraham's  Covenant :  Whereas  the  Reverfe  is  true, that 
fpiritual  Promifes  are  the  primary,  manifeftly  principal, 

jnoft 


Chap.  IV.  cf  Infanr-Baptifm.  27^ 

mofl:  excellent,  and  glorious,  comprehenfive,  and  lailincr 
Promifesin  thisCovenant:  to  which  thetemporalPromil'ci 
of  Canaan  is  annexed,  as  an  Appendage  of  theCovenant, 
and  this,  confidered  as  an  additional  temporal  Bleiring, 
comes  under  the  Title  ot  that  great  Promifc,  /  will  be 
a  God  to  thee  \  as  all  temporal  Bleflings  do  now  in  the 
New- Covenant. 

Thel'e  are  all  his  Reafons,  which  occur  '^x\^^z\  the  Icad- 
ingEnquiry,  (which  I  have  fairly  reprefented,and  not  de- 
fignedly  fupprefs'd  any  Thing  that  may  be  tho't  to  be 
of  the  leafl  Force)  whereby  he  endeavours  to  prove,  the' 
Covenant  with  Abraham  vj-3i%  not  a  Covenant  of  Grace. 
And  I  leave  it  ro  the  intelligent  and  impartial  Reader  to 
judge,  how  little  ihey  avail  to  make  out  the  Point  he 
would  conclude  from  them,  or  whether  they  do  not  ra- 
ther leave  the  oppofite  Truth  more  firmly  eiliiblillied. 

Secondly^  I  proceed  to  his  next  Inquiry,  "With  whom 
"  thisCovenant  was  made  :*'  and  thus  heflates  theQueili- 
on,  "  Whether  thisCovenant,  fo  far  as  it  may  be  reck- 
''  oned  a  Covenant  of  Grace,  or  a  Revelation  of  It,  or 
"  refpeded  fpiritualThings,was  made  with  alLf/r^A-^/^/s 
"  Seed  after  theFlern,and  with  all  the  naturalSeed  of  be- 
"  lievingGentiles  ?" — I  except  againii  feveral  Things  in 
thisState  of  theQueftion.  (i.)Againft  the  limitingClaule, 
So  far  as  it  may  be  reckoned  a  Covenant  of  Grace.  For  I  have 
proved  this  Covenant  v/ith  Abraham  to  be  purely  a  Co- 
venant of  Grace,  in  DiftinCtion  from  the  Covenant  of 
Works,  v;hich  is  inconfiftent  with  that  of  Grace  :  Nor 
doth  the  Mixture  of  temporal  Prcmifes  make  it  a  lefs 
pure  Covenant  of  Grace.  (2.)  Againft  his  Explanation 
cf  theCovenant  of  Grace  ;  meaning  thereby,  i.  A  Reve- 
lation o[  ih^i  Covtmcii  only.  2.  Its  refpe^ftng  only  fpiri- 
iual  Things,  lioth  w^hich  abfurd  Notions  of  theCovenanc 
of  Grace  I  have  before  refuted.  Whereas,  the  Queflion 
ihould  be  thus  dated,  Whether  theCovenant  of  Grace  7nade 
with  Abraham,  extended  to^  and  comprehended  all  his  natU'" 
ral  Seed^  and  all  the  natural  Seed  cf  believing  Gentiles,  un^ 
der  the  vifible  Adminijfraticn  cf  it  j  ////  by  their  Apof^acy^ 

T  Infidelity 


2  74  ^  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  IV. 

Infidelity  or  Profancnef^  they  cut  thernfehcs  off^  and  are 
excluded  by  God  ?  I  add  this  Limitation,  Ftrft,  Becaufe 
theCovenant,  in  the  outward  Adminidration  of  it,  is  no 
ablblutc  Security  againflApoftacy  -,  whether  we  refped 
Infants  who  are  admitted  into  it  with  their  religious  Pa- 
rents, in  Infancy,  or  grown  Perfons  in  their  folemn  cove- 
nanting withGodjhow  credible  focver  theirProfefficn  be  in 
the  Sight  of  Men,  and  how  unqueftionable  foever  their 
Right  may  be  to  the  Ordinances  of  the  Church  :  and  it 
is  not  denied,  that  Apoftates  forfeit  all  Right  they  had  in 
the  Covenant,  and  may  juftly  be  turned  out  of  it.  5^- 
r(?;?J/v, Becaufe  though  it  be  anA.ct  of  Sovereignty  inGod 
to  admit  whom  he  will  into  his  Covenant,  yet  tis  not  a 
meer  A61  of  Sovereignty  to  exclude  thofe  whom  he  hath 
once  admitted  j  but  an  A6t  of  Juftice  alfo,  upon  a  For- 
feiture committed.  Neverthelefs  there  is  much  to  be  af- 
crfbed  to  theSovereignty  of  God, in  taking,  or  not  taking 
this  Forfeiture.  Some  have  a  longer  Space  for  Repen- 
tance indulged  them  under  their  Degeneracies,  and  for 
that  End  are  continued  longer  under  the  external  Admi- 
niilration  of  the  Covenant,  than  others.  And  therefore 
in  order  to  their  Exclufion,  there  feems  requifitean  A(5t 
of  God5declared  by  his\Vord,or  by  hisProvidence.  Hence 
it  v/as,that  when  the  Ifraelites  had  degenerated  into  Ido- 
latry in  AbaFs  l^ime,  and  lb  forfeited  theirRight  in  the 
Covenant,  Goddid  not  wholly  call  them  off,but  prolong'd 
their  Space  of  I^epentance,  and  fent  Elijah  to  turn  back 
their  Heart  to  the  Lord  God  of  Ifrael  i  Kin.  18.3 7,  38, 
39.  And  though. the  Jev^^s  had  become  exceeding  dege- 
nerate and  wicked  about  the  Ti.me  of  Chriil's  Coming, 
yet  God  did  not  prefently  difcovenant  them,  but  fenc 
John  the  Baptift  to  turn  tnany  of  the  Children  <9/Ilrael  to 
the  Lord  their  God.  Luk.  i.  16,  The  Covenant-Relation 
ilill  fuhfifted,  till  their  Rejedion  of  Chrift  and  the  Gof- 
pcl,  and  the  Difiblurion  of  their  Church  and  Comm.on- 
Vv'cakh  that  followed  thereupon  ;  when  God  wrote  Lo- 
ammiuvon  them,  and  diffolved  the  Relation.  But  upon 
an  Offence  commiited  by  IJImael^  the  Son  of  the  Bond- 
won  i  a  n> 


Chap.  IV.  of  Infant-Baptifcn.  275 

woman,  he  was  prefently  turned  out  of  Ahraham''^¥2im\- 
ly,  and  that  by  the  exprefs  Order  of  God  (fien.  21.12.) 
who  took  Occafion  thereupon  to  declare  Ifaac  the  Heir 
ot  his  Covenant,  in  whofe  Race  the  Line  of  the  Church 
fhould  be  continued,  and  the  Blefilngs  of  the  Promife 
tranfmitted  to  his  Seed,  till  the  Coming  of  Chrifb.  In 
Ifaac  jJjall  thy  Seed  be  called.  Yet  I  think,  it  cannot  hence 
certainly  be  concluded,  that  IJhmael  was  cut  off  from  all 
perfonal  Intereft  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace,but  only  from 
the  Privilege  of  having  it  entaii'd  on  his  Seed  or  Pofte- 
rity,  as  it  was  on  the  Seed  of  Ifaac^  who  was  conftituted 
Heir  of  theCovenanr,  according  to  the  full  Extent  of  the 
Promife  to  his  Seed  -,  from  thisHeirfliip  Ifbraael  was  ex- 
cluded :  as  the  Apoille  quotes  the  Oracle,  Gal.  4.  30. 
Caft  out  theBond-jooman  and  her  Son  ;  for  tbeSon  cj  the  Bend- 
woman  Jhall  not  be  Heir  with  the  Son  of  the  Freezvcman, 
And  hence  I  would  obferve.  That  there  was  a  twofold 
Limitation  of  the  Covenant  to  Abraharas  natural  Sct^, 
Firft^  It  was  limited  to  Ifaac  ;  Ifhraael  being  cafi:  out  : 
And  afterwards  it  was  limited  to  Jacob  •,  Efait  for  his 
Profanenefs  in  contemning  the  Birth-Right,  and  thereby 
forfeiting  the  patriarchal  BiefTing,  being  rejected  :  And 
fo  it  was  confirmed  u}}  try  a  io\^n<l  hisPofl:erity,/^r^;;rrfr- 
lafiing  Covenant^  (Pfa.  105.  10.)  without  any  further  Li- 
mitation till  the  Coming  of  Chrift ;  unlefs  we  will  fay, 
it  was  limited  to  the  Houfe  of  Judah,  when  the  itvi 
Tribes  were  excommunicated,  being  driven  out  of  their 
own  Land,  for  their  Breach  of  Covenant,  by  their  Apo- 
ilacy  and  Idolatry.  So  that  the  Covenant  v;ith  Abraham^ 
Ifaac  and  Jacobs  was  the  Root  of  the  Church-State  of  the 
Jews,  till  they  were  broken  off  for  their  rejecting  Chrill 
the  promifed  Seed,  and  the  Gentile  Churches  ingrafted 
in  their  Room. — This  being  premis'd,  and  the  Queflion 
ftated  as  aforefaid,  1  maintain  the  Aflirmative,  vi%.  that 
the  Covenant  of  Grace  made  ^^Kh.  Abraham^  extends  to, 
and  comprehends  all  his  natural  Seed,  (under  the  Limi- 
tations abovementioned  )  and  all  the  natural  Seed  of  be- 
lieving Gentiles  under  the  vifibleAdminiftrationof  it,till 

T  2  they 


2  7^  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.  IV. 

they  cut  off  themrelves  by  Apodacy,  &c.  And  I  might 
difmifs  all  his  Arguments  and  Exceptions  againft  the 
Truth  laid  down  in  this  Proportion,  with  this  only  Re- 
mark, viz.  That  thry  all  proceed  on  this  miftaken  Sup  • 
pofition,  that  none  can  be  faid  to  be  in  che  Covenant 
of  Grace,  but  thofe  that  participate  of  the  Grace  of  the 
Covenant,  or  are  truly  regenerate  and  fandiiied  :  which 
wholly  overtums  theDiftindjon  of  rheCovenantof  Grace 
outwardly  adminifter'd,  and  inwardly  applied  in  its  fpiri- 
tualEfRcacy  -,  which  1  have  fhevv'ed  has  a  folidFoundation 
in  Scripture.  And  there  needs  nothing  more  than  the 
Application  of  this  Diftinftion,  to  difcover  the  Fallacies 
andDeleds  of  our Author'sReafoning  ♦,  as  by  a  brief  View 
of  all  that  he  has  objeded  under  each  Branch  of  the  In- 
quiry, may  appear.  Sj^efi,  i.  Whether  this  Covenant 
■  was  inadcwitb  dl  Abraham's  Seed  according  to  the  Flefh  ? 
His  Reafons  for  thcNegative  are, 

(i.)  "  If  it  was  made  with  all  the  natural  Seed  of  yf- 
"  i?rabam^  as  fuch,  it  miUft  be  made  with  his  more  ini- 
'^  mediate  Offspring,  with  a  mocking  and  perfecuting 
"  Ijhmael —  And  with  a  prophane  Efatt.  P.  49."  Anfw, 
I  have  already  obferved,  that  Ijhnael  and  Efau  were  ex- 
cluded by  a  divine  Direction  •,  however,  before  Iflomael 
appeared  to  be  *-'-  z  mocking  and  perfecuting  Ilhmael,"  and 
iLjau  ihewed  himfelf  a  fro  fane  Efau  ;  Both  the  one  and 
the  other  were  Subjtds  of  the  outward  and  vifrble  Admi- 
nifbraiion  of  the  Covenant,  in  the  religious  Families  of 
the  Pariiarchs,  and  had  the  Token  of  the  Covenant  ap- 
plied to  them, equally  with//?/^^,  theChild  of  thePromife, 
and  with  "  a  pla;n-hearted  J^fi?^." 

(2.)  71ien,  he  fays,  [ibid.)  ''It  muff  be  made  with  all 
"  his  remote  Poflcricy,  and  ffand  good  to  them  in  their 
"  moft  corrupt  Slate."  And  he  iiiftances  in  the  Unbelie- 
ver.^, "  whofe  Carcafes  fell  in  the  Vv^ildernefs,"  and  in 
'^  the  ten  Tribes  v,'ho  revolted  from  tlie  pure  Service  of 
"  God,"&c.  and  in  "  the  Scribes  and  Pharifees  in  our 
"  Saviour's  Time,  that  wicked, adulterous,  and  hypocri- 
'•  licai  Generaiion  ol   Mey,  &c."  KvA  then  concludes 

Vvith 


Chap.  IV,  of  Infant-Baptirin.  277 

with  an  Exclamation,  '^V/hat  Man  that:  ferioufly  confl- 
"  ders  theie  Things,  can  think  that  the  Covenant  of 
"  Grace  belong'd  to  thefe  Men  ?"  Anfw.  It  is  evident 
from  Scripturejihat  theCovenant  of  Grace,  in  Regard  of 
its  external  Adminiftration,  belonged  to  all  thefe 
Men;  notwithftanding  their  Degeneracies  and  Im- 
pieties. And  though  God  threatened  once  and  again 
to  difmherit  that  unbelieving  and  mjurmuringGeneration 
in  the  Wildernefs ;  yet  upon  Mofes's  Interceffion,  he  ilill 
bore  with  them.  And  when  yet  he  pafTed  Sentence, 
that  the  Carcafes  of  thofe  Murmurers  Ihould  fall  in  the 
Wildernefs  (which  was  Part  of  the  Difcipline  of  his 
Covenant,  to  bring  them  to  Repentance)  their  Children 
and  littleOnes  were exprefly  excepted  if  iY^/«^.  14.28,-3  i.j 
to  fhew  that  he  defign'd  not  to  cut  off  the  Entail  of  his 
Covenant  from  their  Children.  And  when  the  teaTribes 
r-evolted  from  the  pure  Service  of  God  to  Idolatry,  and 
fo  had  broken  Covenant  with  the  God  ot"  IjrasU?^^  Elijah 
complain'd,  i  Kings  19.  10.  The  Children  of  IJrael  have 
forfaken  thy  Covenant :  Yet  Gcd  did  not  prefently  break 
his  Covenant  with  them.,  nor  wholly  disfranchize  them, 
as  he  might  judly  have  done  ^  but  exercis'd  long-fuffer- 
ing  for  many  Years  towards  them,&:  fent  his  Prophets  to 
teftiiy  unto  them,  that  he  might  reclaim  them :  particularly 
Elijah  was  lent  to  reflore  the  true  Worfnip  of  God  among 
th.em.  And  in  the  Kingdom  oF  Jiidab^  when  the  People 
renewed  the  Covenant  under  the  reforming  Kings,  after 
a  foregoing  Breach  on  their  Part,  in  the  Reign  of  JJa, 
Joaflo^  and  J ofiah ^x\-\txz  v/as  noDoubt  of  God's  Readinefs 
to  accept  them., and  make  good  theCovenant  on  his  Part. 
When  they  fought  hym^he  "doas  found  of  ths::i.  iChron.  1 5. 15. 
And  in  calling  them  by  his  Prophets  unto  Repentance, 
he  pleads  hisCoven^ntRelation  to  them,]jndcr  theSimili- 
tude  of  a  Marriage-Covenant.  Jer.  ? .  i  ^..Tum,  0  backfiiding 
Children^  faith  the  Lord,  for  lam  married  unto  you.  For  in 
the  Covenant  he  made  with  them,  when  he  bro't  them 
out  oiEgypt^hQ  took  upon  him  theRelation  oi  anlJujland 
unto  them.  Jer.  3132.  And  he  dire^fts  them  in  their  Re~ 

T   3  turn 


278         A  Defence  of  the  Bivine  Ri^ht         Chap. IV. 

turn  to  him  to  plead  their  Covenant- Relation.  Jer.3.22. 
-^—Bebold^we  come  unto  thee^  for  thou  art  the  Lord  ourGod. 
All  which  amounts  to  a  manilett  Evidence,  that  even  in 
their  greateil  Degeneracies,  and  in  their  moll  corrupt 
State,  they  were  Subjects  of  the  external  Adminiftration 
of  the  Covenant.  And  even  the  wicked  Jews  in  our  Sa- 
viour's Time,  the  Scribes  and  Pharifees,  that  confpir'd 
his  Death,  though  exceedingly  corrupt,  yet  were  in  /Ibra- 
harrt's  Covenant  -,  though  they  were  prone  to  boaft  pre- 
iumptuoufly  of  that  Privilege,  that  they  v^ere  not  as  yet 
difcovenanted.  Chriit  allows  them  to  be  Ahrabarr's,  Seed 
by  natural  Defcent,  and  inRegard  of  the  vifible  Admini- 
ftration  of  his  Covenant  j  though  they  difcover'd  aSpiric 
andTemper  mofl  oppofite  to  that  of  /ibrahmn,  Joh.^.'o^j. 
And  in  the  Beginning  of  the  New-Teftament-Miniftry, 
after  the  Death,  Refurredlion,  and  Afcenfion  of  Chrilr, 
the  Apoille  Pf/fr -declares  to  the  Jews, that  they  were  the 
Children  and  Heirs  of  Abrahams  Covenant.  Ad.  3.25. 
Te  are  the  Children — of  theCovenant^  whichGod  made  with 
cur  Fathers-,  fay iny^  unto  Abraham^  &c.  And  for  thisRea- 
fon  they  were  privileged  with  the  firft  Offer  of  Chrift, 
and  his  New-Covenant-BleiTings,  as  it  follows,  y.  26. 
Unto  you  firfl^  God  having  raifed  up  his  Son  Jefus^fent  him 
to  blefs  you^^Q.  And  their  rejecting  this  Offer  through 
Unbelief,  was  the  Caufe  of  their  final  Exclufion  and  Ex- 
communication from  thcNew-Teftament-Adminiftration 
of  theCovenant.  And  the  Paffige  our  Author  cites  from 
Rom.  9.  6,  7.  might  have  taught  him  the  ufe  of  fome 
juchDiRindionjas  I  have  propos'd  :  for  it  is  evident  from 
the  exprefs  Words  of  Scripture^that  God's  Covenant  and 
Promile  was  to  all  the  natural  Seed  of  Abraham  (in  the 
Line  of  Ifadc  and  Jacob)  in  their  Generations'^  Gen.  17.7. 
which  muft  be  underwood  according  to  the  vifible  iiifti- 
tuted.  Adm.iniftration  of  it  •,  though  all  his  natural  Seed 
were  not  for  this  Reafon  the  genuine,or  regenerattdChil- 
drcn  of  God,  by  a  Participaiion  of  the  faving  Grace  of 
theCovenant.  And  tis  as  evidenr.that  ?i\\Ijrael  were  taken 
intoCovi-nnnt  v/irh  God  j  and  this,  purfuant  to  theCove- 

rianc 


Chap.  IV.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  279 

nant  with  Abrahamjfaac  ^  Jacobs  Dc'«/.2  9.i3.-thouo-h 
all  of  that  holy  Nation  and  peculiar  People  were  not  in- 
ternally &  really  fanftified  by  theGrace  of  theCovenanr, 
fo  as  to  anfwer  that  diftinguilliingTitle/m  being  Ifraelites 
indeed. 

(3.)  He  further  fays,  P.  50.  "  Then  it  muQ  be  made 
"  with  IJhmaelites^  and  Edomites^  &c/'  Anfw.  The  Con- 
fequence  is  here  to  be  denied  ;  for  thePofterity  of  Ijhmael 
and  Efau  w^ere  excluded  by  divine  Order  and  Direclion, 
as  has  been  faid,  ('efpecially  fuch  of  them  as  apoftatized 
from  the  Covenant  of  Abraham)  and  the  Line  of  theCo- 
venant  was  limited  to  the  natural  Seed  of  Ifaac  &  Jacob. 

(4..)  But  if  this  Covenant  with  r.br  ah  am  mu^ht  the 
Covenant  of  Grace,  he  has  found  out  a  Way  to  evade 
the  Force  of  the  Argument  from  it,  by  having  Recourfe 
to  his  former  exploded /i/y/><?/^^j,  "  That  it  could  be  no 
"  more  than  aRevelation,  Manife(lation,Copy  or  Tranf- 
"  cript  of  iti"  And  therefore  "  can  never  be  thought  to 
"  comprehend  more    than  the  original  Contracfi:,   the 
*"  eternal  Covenant  between  the  Father  and  the  Son." 
Anfw.  Enough,  I  think,  has  been  faid  to  confute  this  un- 
found  and  unfcrlpturalNotion  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace, 
which  makes  it  the  fame  with  the  Covenant  tranfadled 
between  the  Father  and  the  Son  before  the  World  was, 
or  only  aManifeftation  of  that  Covenant  •,  fo  that  all  and 
only  the  Ele6t  are  interefted  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace, 
and  that  from  Everlafcing.    But  how  Dv.  Gill  will  here 
clear  himfelf  from  a  plain  Contradidlion,  when  he  adds 
this  as  the  Chara^er  of  all  that  are  in  the  Covenant  of 
Grace,  P.  51.  "  They  have  all  of  them  theLaws  of  God 
"  put  into  their  Minds,  and  written  in  theirHeartSjthey 
'•  have  new  Hearts  and  new  Spirits  given  them,  &c.*'  I 
confefs,!  am  not  able  to  difcern  :  uniefs  he  vouches  it  as 
his  Opinion  that  they  all  have  the  Law^s  of  God  v^rittea 
in  their  Hearts,  and  have  new  Hearts  given  them  from 
Everlafting  \  which  is  fo  extravagant  aWhiinfy,  as  mull 
give  Difgufl  to  the  common  Senfe  and  Reafon  of  Man- 
kind.    Or  if  he  has  any  fober  confiftent  Meaning,  and 
T  ±  iatended 


2 So         A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  IV. 

intended  only  to  fay,  that  all  that  are  in  the  Covenant  of 
Grace  from  Everlafting,  have  theL^'K;i  of  God  written  in 
their  Hearts^  in  Time  (i,  e.  fomc  Time  or  other  of  their 
Lives)  then  it  wiilfolIow,according  tohisov^/nHypothe- 
fis,  than  rhis  Charafter  of  having  theLaw  of  God  written 
in  the  i  ieart,  is  not  difLindive,  and  proper  to  all  that  arc 
3n  Covenai  t-,  for  ii"  they  be  in  Covenant  fromEverlafting, 
then  furely  they  were  fo,  all  the  Time  of  their  Lives  be- 
fore the  Lavv  of  God  is  written  in  their  Hearts,  and  they 
have  new  Hearts  given  them  ;  and  fo  Men  may  be  in 
Covenant  without  being  regenerated  or  fandified.  Why 
then  does  he  make  this  Objection  againft  all  A'braham'''^ 
natural  Race  their  being  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  be- 
caufe  many  of  them  were  wicked  &  unholy  ?  When  ac- 
cording to  his  own  Scheme  of  Notions  he  muft  either  fay, 
that  many  are  in  theCovenant  of  Grace  before  they  have 
newHearts  given  them,or  that  they  have  fuch  newHeart3 
given  them  from  Everlafting.  Now  becaufe  all  this  can- 
iiot  be  laid  Cand  no  Man  in  his  Senfes  pretends  to  fay  it) 
of  all  the  natural  Seed  of  Abraham^  that,  all  of  them  are 
eternally  chofen,  regenerated,  fandified,  &c.  therefore 
he  concludes,  that  all  the  naturalSeedof //i;r^>6^;;2  could 
not  be  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace.  He  had  talk'd  more 
intelhgibly,  if  his  Enquiry  had  been,  Whether  all  the 
natural  Seed  of  Abraham  were  truly  regenerated  ?  And 
hisArgument  for  theNegative  had  been  fomething  more 
pertinent  :  but  then  he  might  know,thatnoPcTdobaptift, 
in  Confequence  of  his  Argument  from  theCovenant  with 
Abraham^  would  have  b(;en  obliged  to  oppofe  him.  But 
for  a  Man  f  taking  it  for  granted, that  none  can  be  faid  to 
be  in  the  Covenant,  but  the  Eled;  and  truly  Regenerate, 
V;ithout  Proof)  to  run  on  hi  a  declamatory  Stile,  inveigh- 
ing againft  the  contrary  Tenet,  without  ever  takingNo- 
rice  of  the  Diftin^ion  that  ought  to  be  made  in  thisCafe, 
is  not  to  explain  or  fettle  the  Truth,  but  to  involve  it  in 
greater  Darknefs  &  Confurion,and  can  fcarce  be  thought 
to  have  any  other  Defign  than  toamufe  and  miflead  iche 
vulgar  Reader. 

As 


Chap.  IV.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  281 

As  to  the  Sentiments  and  Principles  of  theGentleman, 
who  was  the  Author  of  theDialogue,  which  Dr.  Gtll  here 
repeats  his  Reflexions  upon,  I  have  fhewed  already  how 
confiifent  thofe  Principles  are  (as  exprefs*d  in  the  Dia- 
logue) with  the  true  Scripture-Docirine  of  Election, &c. 
as  it  ftands  in  Oppofuion  to  .irmiman  Tenets  •,  fo  that  he 
had  noGrounds  tor  his  Confidence,  that  that  Author  was 
uncapable  of  writing  withPropriety  &Succer5,and  "with- 
out Contradidion  to  himfelt,"  a^ainfl:  thofe  Tenets. 

^^eft.  2.  "  Whether  this  Covenant  with  Abraham  was 
*'  made  with  all  the  natural  Seed  of  believing  Gentiles  V* 
The  Dillindlion  between  the  adual  and  virtual  makino- 

o 

of  the  Covenant  being  fuppos'd  (for  adually  it  could  not 
be  made  with  thern  before  they  came  into  ExiftencCjOuc 
virtually  it  might  include  or  comprehend  the  natural 
Seed  of  believing  Gentiles)  I  hold  the  Affirmative,  and 
have  proved  ir.  Dr.  Gill  endeavours  to  prove  the  Ne- 
gative; but  his  Arguments  run  in  the  fame  Strain,  and 
are  grounded  on  the  lame  falfe  and  confuted  Elypothdis 
with  the  former. 

I.  He  allows,  "That  thisCovenant  refpe61:s^^<?rz7/^.^;;/s 
"  fpiritual  Stt:^  among  the  Gentiles^  even  all  true  Belie- 
"  vers,  —  but  not  the  natural  Seed  of  believing  Gen- 
"  tiles''  P.  53.  So  here  is  a  (IrongAffertionjbut  no^roof. 
I  have  fully  demonflrated  from  Scripture,that  the  Cove- 
nant with  At>rabam  and  his  natural  Seed  runs  in  the  fame 
Tenor,with  believing  Jews  and  G entiles ^\>.x\<^^\  theGofpel, 
and  their  Seed,  and  lo  have  anticipated  all  hisObjedions 
under  this  Enquiry.  But  here  he  adds  a  Stroke  that  ac 
once  cuts  o?i d\\Abraham\  nacuralSeed,  &  all  the  natural 
Seed  of  believing  Geniiles^i'rom  having  any  Share  in  the 
Covenant.  For  he  hys^ibid.  "  That  to  none  can  fpiritual 
"  Bleffings  belong,  but  to  a  fpiritual  Seed, not  a  natural' 
''  one."  But  I  prefume,  this  was  fpoken  unawares, 
from  his  Aifeclation  oF  ftrong  Terms,  when  he  meant 
to  fay,  ?iot  a  meer  natural  Seed  -,  for  furely  be  will 
grant,  that  thofe  whomi  he  calls  a  fpiritual  Seed,  were 
moll  numerous  among  the  natural  Seed  of  Ahakam^^'Cid 

among 


2  82         A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap, IV. 

among  the  natural  Seed  of  Chiiftian  Gentiles.  Why  then 
does  he  fo  indiftindly  oppofe  a  natural  Seed  to  a  fpiritual  ? 

But  here  he  makes  aChallenge,  "Let  it  be  prov'd5if  it 
•'  can,  that  all  the  natural  Seed  of  believing  G^;?///^j  are 
"  the  fpiritual  Seed  of  Abraham^  and  then  they  will  be 
"  admitted  to  have  a  Claim  to  thisCovenant.  Anf.  If  he 
means,  by  i\\q  fpiritual  Seed  of  Abraham, ^  truly  regenerate 
Seed,  no  iVIan  pretends  the  Proof  of  it  ;  and  it  is  imper- 
tinent, and  proceeds  on  his  confuted  Miftake,  that  no 
Perfon  can  be  faid  to  be  in  Covenant  but  the  trulyRege- 
nerate.  \Vhereas,it  is  not  requifite  to  a  Perfon's  vifible 
Title  &  Claim  to  the  externalPrivileges  of  theCovenant, 
that  he  fhould  be  truly  Regenerate,or  a  fincere  Believer  : 
but  only  give  credibleEvidence  in  the  Sight  of  Men  that 
he  is  fo  •,  iince  theAdminiftration  of  theCovenant  is  by  di- 
vine Inftitution  committed  unto  Men  :  and  fuch  a  credi- 
ble Evidence  is  the  vifible  ProfelTion  of  the  Adult  ;  and 
it  is  an  equally  fufiicient  and  credible  Evidence  &  War- 
rant to  the  Church  to  proceed  by,  in  admitting  Infants 
to  the  vifible  Privileges  of  the  Covenant  they  are  capable 
of,  that  God  is  pieafed  to  extend  his  Covenant  and  Pro- 
mife  to  the  Infants  of  fuch  profeffingBel levers.  Of  their 
Right  and  Claim  to  fpiritual  Blefrmgs,not  Man,butGod 
mud  judge.  But  x^hj  fpiritual  Seed^  he  means  the  Seed 
of  /Ibraham,  according  to  the  fpiritual  Intent  of  the  Co- 
venant, in  Contradiilinftion  from  the  literal,  which  I 
choofe  to  term  his  adopted  or  ingrafted  Seed,  I  have  alrea- 
dy proved  by  divers  Scripture-Teflimonies,  that  the  be- 
jieving  Gentiles,  with  their  natural  Seed,  are  the  fpiritual 
Seed  o^  Abraham^  being  comprehended  in  his  Covenant. 
And  in  my  Turn',  I  may  challenge  Dr.  G///,orany  of  his 
Party,  to  difprove,  if  they  can,  thofe  Tcflimonies,  by 
any  found  Arguments  from  Reafon  or  Scripture. 

He  afl<:s,  "  Though  believing  Gentiles  are  in  this  Co- 
"  venant,  what  Claufe  is  there  in  ir,  that  refpeds  their 
"  natural  Seed  ?  Let  it  be  fliown,  if  it  can."  I  anfwer, 
(not  to  fpeak  of  the  fubilantial  Tenor  of  the  Covenant 
and  Promife  of  God, to  be  a  God  unto  him  and  his  Seed, 

which 


Chap.  IV.  cf  Infant-Baptilm.  28^  . 

which  I  have  fhewed  to  be  invariably  the  fame  toGofpel- 
Believers  and  their  Seed)  there  is    that  Claufe  —  tor  a 
Father  of  many  Nations  have  I  made  thee^   Gen.  17.  4,  5, 
Which  the  Apollie  apphes  to  the  Chriilian  Seed  oiAi^ra- 
ham,Rom.4..i6^iy.  But  how  could  he  be  the  Father  of 
many  Nations^  or  cf  any  one  Chrijlian  Nation^    if  their  In- 
fants were  excluded  ?     Or  if  the  Infant-Children  of  a 
Chriftian  Nation  v/ere  not  to  be  accounted  the  Seed  of  yf- 
h'aham,  as  well  as  grown  Ferfons  ?  Are  not  Nations-,  in 
the  Language  &  Senfe  of  holy  Scripture,  as  well  as  of  all 
otherWritings,  underftood  to  comprehend  Ch!ldren,who 
commonly  make  up  the  greateft  Part  of  Nations  ?  Let  it 
be  fhown^  if  it  can^  where  Infant-Children    are  excluded 
from  Nations,or  from  any  Privileges  of  Nations,  as  fuch. 
Again,  There  is  that  Claufe  that  adopts  theStranger  that 
is  not  o^  Abrabamh  Seed  into  his  Covenant  {ibid,  ii.ii.) 
whofe  Seed,  born  in  r^hrahani^  Family,  are  exprefiy  or- 
dered to  be  circumcis'd,  v;hen  they  were  eighc  Days  old, 
as  well  as  his  natural  Seed.     And  thisLaw  was  afterwards 
given  to  the  Stranger  that  would  join  himfeif  in  fullCom- 
munion  with  theChurch  of  Ifrael  \  Let  all  his  Males  bs 
circumcised^  Exod.  12.48.  And  it  was,  in  Conformity  to 
this  Law,  the  known  Cuftom  of  the  Jews  all  along  to  ad- 
mit Profelytes  from  Gentilifm,  by  the  Circumcifion  of  all 
their  Male  Seed.     And  fo  they  were,  by  divine  Appoint- 
ment, to  havetheToken  of  Abraham's  Covenant  in  their 
Fleih  :  Whence  it  follows,  that  theCovenant  with  /jbra- 
har/i  and  his  Seed  held  in  the  fame  Tenor  to  the  Gentile 
Stranger  profelyted  to  it,  that  is,  to  him  and  to  his  Seed. 
For  fuch  IS  the  Sacramental  Union  and  Relation  betv.'een 
the  Thing  fignified  and  the  Sign,   that  the  Sign  is  often 
in  Scripture  put  for  theThing  lignified  •,    and  the  Thing 
fignified,  for  the  Sign  \  fo  that  theArgument  holds  good 
both  Ways,  from  an  Intered  in  the  Covenant,to  a  Right 
to  the  Sign  ;  and  fiom  a  Right  to  the  Sign, to  anlntercll 
in  the  Covenant.     Now  of  what  Covenant   or  Promife 
was  Circumcifion  theToken  to  theStranger  that  was  not 
or  abrahairh  Seed,cr  the  profeJytedGentile  and  hisSced  t 

'    •  it 


^84  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  IV. 

It  could  not,  furely,  be  a  Token  of  a  meer  temporal  Co- 
venant, or  of  the  rromife  o^Caitaan  for  their  Poifcfiion  ; 
for  this  was  appropriated  to  the  natural  Seed  of  Abraham 
by  Ifaac  and  Jacob :  nor  do  we  find  that  theChildren  of 
Ijrael  ever  divided  anyPortion  of  the  Land  to  Strangers.*. 
It  remains  then,  that  it  mufl  be  a  Token  of  the  great 
ftanding  Promife  of  the  Covenant,  I  will  a  God  to  thee 
(imi  thySeed  \  ?ind  confequently  of  theCovenant  of  Grace, 
in  the  moft  fpiritual  Senfe  of  it,the  fame  that  is  in  Force 
to  Believers  under  theNew-  Teftament.  Which  fuggefls 
another  Argument  for  the  Intereft  of  the  Infant-Children 
of  Chriftians  in  theCovenant  of  yf^r^i7^;;?5and  theirRight 
to  the  New-Teflament  Sign  &  Seal  of  it.  For  if  God, 
in  the  firft  making  of  this  Covenant,  and  in  the  firft  In- 
Iticution  of  an  initiacing  Token  of  it,  made  Provifion  for 
the  AdmilTion  of  Gentile  Strangers  into  it,who  were  not 
o't  Abraham's  Seed,  together  with  their  natural  Seed,  and 
cxpreily  appointed  and  commanded  the  initiating!  okcn 
of  it  to  be  apply'd  to  their  natural  Seed,which  is  evident 
from  undeniable  Teilipionies  of  Scripture  \  it  neceflarily 

follows, 

*  In  EzfkicrsSf'iiiovL  of  theDlftribution  of  the  hoIyLand, there  is  im^eed 
Provifion  made  for  the  Inheritance  of  Strangers  and  their  Children. 
Chap.  47.  22.  And  it  pall  come  to  pa/s^  that  ye  pall  di'vide  it  ky  Lot 
for  an  Inheritance  unto ycu,  and  to  tbeStrangers  that  fcjcum  among  you^ 
'zvhich/hall  begft  Children  among  you^  and  they  Jhall  be  unto  you  as  born 
in  the  Country  amonp;  the  Children  o/I/rael,  th<y  Jhall  ha'ue  Inheritance 
^■ithym  among  theTrihes  of  I/rael.  But  this  vifionnryDillrlbution  of 
theLand  being  on  this,&  divers  othcrAccounts,fo  very  different  from 
the  realDivilion  of  it  MvAzxJojkna  to  theTrihes  of /y/-^? J,  when  they 
frll  tookPoffeffionofit;  &  confidering  thelnnprobability,  if  notlm- 
pofiibility  of  Itshaving  a  literal  Accornplilhment,Interpreters  therefore 
have  been  generally  inclined  to  undcrlland  it  in  amyiticalSenfcrc- 
ferring  it  to  the  Gofpel-State  of  the  Church,  which  perhaps  may 
have  a  more  g'orious  Accompllfhment  in  feme  future  happy  Period. 
And  in  this  Reference,  whatclfe  can  the  Words  cited  import,than 
that  the  Gentile  Strangers  lliould  in  the  Times  of  the  Gofpcl  be  ad- 
milted  to  Communion  with  the  natural  Seed  of  Jbraham  a.nd  I/ratl 
in  their  church- Privileges,  which  fhould  be  tranfmitted,  as  ever  of 
old,  from  Parents  to  their  Children  ?  And  this  is  no  more  than  what 
is  expc6ted,  by  many  pious  and  learned  Men,from  divers  Scripture- 
I'rophccies,  when  Jews  and  Gentiles  fnall  be  united  in  the  Gofpel- 
Church,  in  the  lutcr  Davs. 


Chap.  IV.  of  Infant- Baptlfm.  285 

follows,that  believing  Gentiles  under  theGofpel,  by  join- 
ing themfelves  in  Covenant  w^ith  the  God  of  Ifrael  thro' 
Faith  in  Chriil,  are  v;ith  their  natural  Seed  taken  mtoA" 
braham's  Covenant,  and  under  the  Evangelical  Admini- 
ftration  of  the  Privileges  and  Bleffings  of  it,  and  by  the 
Ordinance  of  God  ought  to  have  the  initiating  Token 
applied  to  them  and  their  Infant-Seed.  For,  i.  Gentile 
Believers  come  into  thisCovenantjand  are  accepted  in  it, 
upon  the  fame  Footing  with  the  Strangers  that  were  not 
of  Abraham's  Seed,  to  whom  the  Covenant  and  Token  of 
it  belong'd  by  divine  Inftitution,in  the  fameExtent,even 
to  their  natural  Seed,  as  to  Abraham  &  his  natural  Seed. 
2.  Becaufe  thisCovenant  \N\t\\^ibraham  aiorefaid,  was  or- 
dain'd  by  God  to  be  an  Everlafting  Covenant^  thro  all  the 
Generations  of  the  Faithful.  Which  Covenant  (as  has 
been  proved)  Chrift  has  taken  into  his  New-Teftament- 
Adminiftration,  as  the  principal  Matter  of  it,  under  his 
New-Teftament  Sign  and  Sea],which  isBaptifm,and  that 
in  as  full  Extent, without  Exception  of  any  Perfons  for- 
merly received  into  it,  and  intitled  to  the  iniciatingToken 
of  it,  and  lo  has  eftablifhed  it  to  endure  to  the  End  of 
the  World.  In  a  Word,  believing  Gentiles,  now,  with 
their  natural  Seed,  are  the  very  Strangers  that  are  not  of 
Abraham^  s  Seed  yX.o  whom,  by  divine  Warrant  inthefirft 
Inflitution,  the  Covenant,  with  the  initiating  Token  an- 
nex'd, belongs.  And  let  this  be  difprov'd,  if  it  can.  Btt 
I'm  pretty  fure,it  never  can  be  difprov'd  •,  unlefs  it  could 
be  lliewed,by  good  Evidence  from  theWord  of  God,that 
the  Children  ot  believing  Gentiles  are  excluded  and  de- 
barred from  ihe  Covenant  and  annexed  Sign&Seal,v;hich 
they  formerly  enjoyed.  But  where  is  the Textjthat  doth 
either  exprefly  or  confequentially  exclude  them  ?  So  that 
our  Author  may  fee,  if  he  pleales,  (in  Anfwer  to  his  De- 
mand, "  By  whatRightand  Authority  can  any  believing 
''  Gentile  pretend  to  put  his  natural  Seed  mionbrahanis 
"  Covenant  ?"J  That  it  is  by  divineRight  &  Authority 
this  is  done  •,  God  has  put  them  there  :  and  it  is  no  un- 
warrantabiePretence  in  them5buc  a  Duty,  to  acknowlege, 

and 


2S6  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.  IV.  , 

and  claim,  and  thankfully  to  improve  this  Covenant-In- 
tereft  and  Right,  which  God  has  gracioufiy  vouchfated 
to  their  Children. 

Secondly^  He  fays,  P.  54.  "  The  Covenant  v/ith' 
"  Abraham  and  his  fpiritual  Sttdi^  takes  in  many  of  the 
*'  Seed  of  the  unbelieving  Gentiles,  who  being  called  by 
"  Grace,  and  openly  believing  Chrift,are  Abraham^  fpi- 
"  ritualSeedjWith  whom  theCovenant  v/as  made."  Who 
denies  it  ?  But  what  does  he  mean  by  openly  believing  ? 
What  elfe  can  he  mean  but  an  open  ProreQion  ot  Faith  ? 
And  if  he  will  (land  to  this,  he  mud  give  up  his  Notion 
of  the  fpiritual  Seed  of  Abraham^  that  the  Covenant  of 
Grace  is  made  with  none  but  true  Believers,  or  the  truly 
regenerate  ;  for  how  will  he  know,  that  thofe  that  openly 
believe  in  Chriil  are  Abraham's  fpiritual  Seed{m  thisSenfeJ 
with  mhcm  the  Covenant  was  made  ?  Do  not  many  openly 
believe,  that  do  not  truly  and  inHeart  believe  ?  Did  not 
Simon  Magus  openly  believe,when  he  was  all  the  while  an 
Hypocrite  in  Hear:  r  ''  On  the  other  Hand  (  he  flays  ) 
"  there  are  many  born  of  believing  Gentiles,  who  do  not 
*'  believe  in  Chriil^  are  not  ParcaKers  of  his  Grace  •,  on 
"  whom  the  fplrirualBleiTings  of  Abraham  do  not  come, 
*'  and  {1^  not  m  his  Covenant."  That  is  to  fay,  If  all  the 
Children  of  believing  Gentiles  do  not  partake  of  the 
faving  Grace  of  the  Covenant,  are  not  truly  regenerate 
and  fan6tified,  then  they  can  on  no  other  Account  be 
faid  to  be  in  his  Covenant  :  Let  him  prove  the  Confe- 
quence.  According  to  this  Gentleman'sConceit,  noPer- 
fon  living  is  capable  of  the  Ordinances,  and  vifiblePrivi- 
leges  of  the  Church,  upon  any  Grounds  of  CovenantTn- 
terell  -,  becaufe  Men  to  whom  the  Adminiftration  of  the 
Ordinances  is  committed, are  uncapable  of  that  infallible 
difcerning  of  the  Hearts  of  others,  which  is  requifite  to 
their  judging  who  are  trueBelievcrs,  or  truly  regenerate, 
and  who  are  not,  without  a  Revelation  from  God. 

mrdly^  His  next  is  but  aRepetition  of  the  fame  Argu- 
ment he  had  ufed  againft  all  the  naturalSeed  o^  Abraham j 
their  being  in  theCovenant  of  Grace  •,  becaufe  they  are 

•    noc 


Chap.  IV.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  287 

not  all  "  Elefl,  Redeemed,  effeaually  called,  &c."  And 
the  fame  Anfwer  mayfuiHce  for  the  Confutation  of  it. 

Fourthly^  He  thinks  it  beft  "  to  put  off  the  Claim  of 
"  the  Infant-Seed  of  believing  GentileSjto  any  Privilege 
"  fuppos'd  to  arife  from  Covenant-Intereft,  till  ic 
*'  appear  they  have  one."  But  is  not  this  to  correal  the 
Wifdom  ot  God,who  has  otherwiTe  ordained  theMethod 
of  the  Difpenfation  of  hisCovenant  to  Men  ?  And  they 
that  will  not  reft  fatisfied  in  the  EvidenceGod  has  given 
of  the  Covenant-Intereft  of  the  Infant-Seed  of  Believers, 
do  but  befool  and  deceive  themfelves  in  expeding  any 
better  Satisfaction  from  other  Evidence.  Dr.  Gill  fays, 
P.  ^^.  "  It  cannot  be  known  who  are  in  this  Covenant, 
*'  till  they  believe  in  Chrift."  But  how  or  when  can  it 
be  known,that  they  do  believe  in  Chrift  ?  That  is,  truly 
believe,  "  and  fo  appear  to  ht/lbraham''%  fpiritual  Seed." 
Will  a  ProfefTion  made  at  adult  Age  manifeft  this  ? 
which  he  feems  to  take  for  granted.  Nov/  fuch  Profef- 
fion  is  either  a  certain  and  infallible  Evidence  of  true 
faving  Faith  &  Regeneration,the  Charaderifticks  of  the 
fpiritual  Seed  in  his  Senfe,  or  it  is  not ;  if  it  be  a  certain 
and  infallible  Evidence,  then  all  that  make  fuch  a  Pro- 
fefTion are  true  Believers  and  Regenerate,&:  confequently 
all  the  Members  of  the  vifible  Church  are  real  Saints. 
But  no  Man  in  his  Wits,  furely,  will  pretend  to  defend 
fuch  a  Paradox. — But  if  it  be  not  fuch  an  Evidence,why 
fhould  not  the  Teftimonies  and  Declarations  of  the 
Word  of  God,  concerning  all  the  natural  Seed  of  the 
Faithful  indefinitely  ( that  of  fuch  is  the  Kingdom  of  God:, 
that  the  Promife  of  his  Covenant,  under  the  Gofpel-Ad- 
miniftration,  extends  to  theirChildren  •,  and  that  on  that 
Covenant  they  are  Holy^  fo  as  the  Children  of  Infidels  are 

I  not)  be  as  good  Evidence  of  a  Covenant-Intereft,  and  as 
good  a  Warrant  for  admitting   them  to  the  Ordinances 

ii  and  Privileges  of  the  vifible  Church,  as  anyProfeffion  of 

\\  the  Adult  can  be  ? 

j      Fifthly,  He  adds,  ibid,  "  After  all  Covenant-Intereft 
I*'  gives  no  Hi  eh  t  to  any  Ordinance,   without  apofitive 

Order 


zSS  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  IV. 

"  Order  and  Dire6lion  from  God."  /Infjo.  What  is  an 
Ordinance  of  God  in  the  Church,  but  a  pofuive  Order 
and  Diredion  from  God,  to  obferve  -certain  Rites  and 
Modes  of  WorlLip  ?  So  that  to  fay,  Covenant-Intcre^ 
gives  no  Right  to  any  Ordinance^  without  a  pofttive  Order 
and  Direction  from  God^  is  to  fay,  I'hat  it  gives  no  Righc 
to  any  Ordinance,  without  an  Ordinance  of  God.  But 
finee  all  the  Members  of  the  vifible  Church  are  Subjeds 
ot  the  Ordinances,  and  have  a  Right  and  Obhgation  to 
receive  &  obferve  them  ;  And  the  ]iifan«s  of  vifibleBehe- 
vers  having  been  proved  to  be  ^^enlbers  of  the  vifible 
Church,fofar  as  theirlnfantState&Capacity  willadmii(be- 
ingcomprehendedwith  iheirParents  in  theCovenant)they 
are  fo  far,  undoubtedly,  Subjeds  of  the  Ordinances,  and 
need  no  new  pofitive  Order  and  Diredion  from  God, 
to  give  them  a  Right  thereunto.  As  for  his  Inilances^ 
they  make  nothing  tor  his  Purpofe.  Particularly,  as  to 
Circumcifion,  his  Inllances  in  f4rpha>:ad  &  Lot  have  been 
anfv/er'd  above  :  They  were  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace, 
under  a  former  Adminiftration  -,  before  the  Inflirution 
of  Circumcifion  in  yf^r^/.?i2;?i's  Family.  And  if  the  Co- 
venant with  Ahrahani  was  a  Covenant  of  Grace,  as  has 
been  proved,  his  AiTenicn  is  falfe,  That  "  many  were 
*'  oblig'd  to  ufe  it,  who  were  not  in  the  Covenant  of 
"  Grace."  And  as  to  Baptifm,  he  fays  ( ibid.  )  ''  If  it 
<'  could  be  proved,  as  it  cannot,  that  all  the  Infant-Seed, 
"  of  Believers,  as  fuch,  are  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  it 
«'  would  give  them  no  Right  to  Baptifm,  without  apo- 
*'  fitive  Command  for  it."  Anfw.  I  have  already  fufiici 
ently  prov'd,  i.  1  hat  Infants  are  capable  of  the  Ordi 
nance  of  Baj)tifm  •,  and  that  there  is  no  Incapacity  or 
their  Part,  of  having  it  adminiilred  to  them.  2.  Tha 
all  the  Infant-Seed  of  Believers,  as  fuch,  are  in  the  CovC' 
nanc  of  Grace  outwardly  adminiffred.  3.  ThatChrifl  hai 
inditutcd  Baptifm  for  all  his  New-Tcila,ment -Federates! 
without  Exception  of  any  Age  or  anySort  of  Pcrfons,wh( 
were  the  Subjedls  of  the  Oid-Teflament-Adminiflration 
And  that   a  vifible  Covenant-Intereft   gives  a  Kight  t< 

th< 


Chat.  IV.  of  Infant- Baptlfm.  2 89 

the  initiating  Token  and  Seal  ;  and  fohath  fully  antici- 
pated his  Objection  on  this  Head  •,  and  therefore  ail  che 
Infant^Seed  of  Behevers  have  a  Right  by  divine  InRitu- 
tion  to  the  Ordinance  ot  Baptifm.  But  what  is  his  Rea- 
fon  ?  "  Becaufe  (he  fays)  a  Perfon  may  be  in  Covenant, 
and  a-;  yet  not  have  thePre-requifiie  to  anOrdinance,even 
Faith  in  Chriif,  and  a  FrofelTion  of  it."  Anf-d:^.  'IhisFre- 
requifite  is  indefinitely  laid  down  by  our  Saviour,  Mar. 
1 6. 1 5, 1 6. — Preach  the  Gofpel  to  every  Creature^  He  that 
believeth  and  is  baptized  Ihall  be  faved^  c*.rc.  (which  I  fup- 
pofe  he  refers  to)  and  muft  be  determined  by  the  Subjed: 
fpoken  of,  which  can  be  underftood  of  no  other  (as  the 
immediate  Subjed)  dian  adultPerfoio^vvlioby  thePrer^ch- 
ing  ot  the  Gofpel  are  converted  to  cne  F.:.irh  andRel'g'ion 
of  Chrift.  And  when  Parents  being  Cliriftianized  have 
this  Requifite  of  Faith  in  Chrift,  and  a  i^rofefilon  ot  it, 
how  weakly  is  the  Want  of  it  urged  as  a  Bar  t-o  their  In- 
fants, who  being  included  in  the  Profedloa  ci  their  Chri- 
ftian  Parents,  and  comprehended  m  theGofpel  Covenant 
with  them,  have  on  that  Account,  a  clear  Right  to  Bap- 
tifm. And,  in  Effe«51:,  this  Pre  requifite,  is  nottimgeire, 
but  a  Covenant-State,  which  can  be  no  otherv/ife  entred 
into  by  adult  Perfons,  brought  up  in  a  headienidi  &  pro- 
fane State,  than  byFaith  in  Chriit,  and  a  Prot'uTionof  ir. 
And  this  is,  confeiledly  requir'd  of  fuch  Perfons,  before 
they  themfelves,  or  their  Children,  can  have  a  Right  to 
Baptifm.  And  having  themfelves  thus  entred  into  a 
Covenant  State,  their  Children  (if  any  they  have)  are  by 
the  divine  Conllitution  of  the  Covenant,  brought  in  with 
them,  and  have  equally  with  theirParents,  a  Right  to  this 
iniriatingOrdinance.  OurAuthor  therefore,  had  noRea- 
fon  to  fuppofe  the  want  of  a  Pre- requifite  in  any  that  are 
already  in  a  Covenant-State,that  Ihould  debar  them  from 
the  Ordinance. 

But  fince  this  is  fo  often  in  the  Mouths  of  theAntipcc- 
dobaptilts,  which  they  imagine  an  invincible  Objcdtu  11 
againft  Intant-Baptifm  :  Chrilf  \\^'i.{■^^^i^  He  that  believeth 
amiis  baftized Jljall  be  faved^   therefore  Faith  is   pre-re- 

V  quir'd 


290  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  IV. 

quir'd  to  Baprilm,  which  Infants  are  uncapable  of :  And 
iince  it  is  frequently  referred  to  by  our  Author,  and  re- 
lied on,  as  his  dernierRefort^  (to  ufe  his  own  ExprefTion) 
on  all  Occafiofis  :    let  me  in  a  few  Words  obferve,  once 
for  all,  that  in  this  Pallage,  cur  Saviour,  in  laying  down 
tbeCor.ditions  of  Salvationjdoes  indeed  require  Faith  and 
Baptifm  in  order  thereunto.      ButFaith  is  niore  indifpen- 
fabiy  required,  and  greater  Strefs  laid  upon  it  as  a  Fre- 
requifite  unto  Solvation,   than  unto  Baptifm.     But  it  is 
not  pre-requir'd  untoBaprifm  otherwife,than  in  the  order 
of  the  Words  :  Chrifl  does  not  i^yjle  that  believeth  fhall  be 
baptized,  but   he  that  believeth  and  is  baptized^  jhall  be 
faved.    Whence  nothing  more  can    be  concluded,    than 
that  both  Faith  &  Baptifm  are  pre-requir'd  to  aPerfon's 
being;  admitted  into  a  State  of  Salvation.     Suppofe  an 
aduk  Heathen  to  profefs  Faith  in  Chrif!:,but  does  not  be- 
iiev  e  with  his  Heart,  or  has  not  the  Grace  of  Faiih  that 
will  fave  him,  yet  upon  his  ProtefTion  is  baptized  -,   and 
fuppofing  him  afterwards  to  become  a  true  penitent  Be- 
liever, has  not  fuch  a  Perfon  the  Pre-requifues  of  Salva- 
tion ?  May  it  not  truly  be  faid,  that   he   believes  and  is 
baptized^  and  therefore  has  a  Title  to  Chrift's  Promife  of 
Salvation,  tho  he  is  baptized  betore  he  believes  untoSal- 
vation.    Now  to  apply  this  to  Inlants  baptized  inlnfancy, 
not  to  fpeak  of  the  Habit  ot  F^aith  (whicli  the  Infants  of 
the  Church  muft  be  allowed  capable  of  in  their  Regene- 
ration, or  be  excluded  from  a  State  of  Salvation  by  the 
peremptory  Declaration  of  our  Saviour,  Joh.'T^.^.)    If  we 
take  i'aith  here  for  a6lual  believing,  which  coniifts  in  the 
explicit    Acts    of  Knowlege,  Aflent,    and  IVutling  in 
Chrift,  which,  'tis  granted.  Infants,  as  fL]ch,are  uncapable 
of  i  yet  being  baptized  in  Infancy, aftd  growing  up  to  the 
Age  of  Diicretion,   they  may  thus  believe    m  Chriil  ; 
and  in  fo  doing  fully  comply   with  his  l>rms  of  Salva- 
tion i  that  is,iT;ay  be  properly  faid  both  to  beheve  and  be 
baptized  :  tho  theAtIs  ot  cheirFaith  follow  aiterBaptifm  : 
tor  this  Propofirion  of  Chriil  does  not  make  it  necefTary 
to  Salvation,  that  Fjith  fi^ould  eo  before  Baptifm. 

Or 


Chap.  IV*  &f  Infant-Baptifm.  291 

Or  to  bring  the  Matter  to  a  Head,  one  of  thefe  three 
Things  mult  be  laid  to  the  Objccrors,  concerning  the 
Infants  of  thofe  to  whom'  the  Gofpel  is  preached,  who 
hear,  and  beheve  it,  and  are  baptizedjcither,  Firfi^  That 
fiich  Infants  are  included  in  rhe  ProfelPjon  of  their  believ- 
ing Parents.  Or  Secondly,  They  are  to  be  nuinber'd  with 
the  Unbelievers.  Or  l^hirdly^  This  Propofition  does  not 
ac  all  concern  Infants  one  Way  or  other,  but  relates 
only  to  the  x'^dult.  If  the/ri?  be  faid,  Cwhich  I  hold  to 
be- the  Truth)  that  Infants  are  included  in  the  ProfefTion 
ot  their  believing  Parents,  being  comprehended  in  God's 
Covenant  with  them, then  they  have  an  equal  Right  with 
their  Parents  unto  Baptifm  by  thisConftitution  of  Chrifb. 
if  it  be  faid,/^fW/y,  They  arc  to  be  rank'd  withUnbelie- 
vers,then,feeingtheSentenceisperemptory,^^//:7^/i'r/OT^/i> 
not  Ihall  be  damned^  all  that  die  in  Infancy  muft  unavoida- 
bly be  damned.  Which  is  a  Tenet  fo  inhuman,  uncha- 
ritable, and  unfcriptural, that  few  or  none,  I  believe,  fince 
the  Days  of  the  Petrobrufians^-^iW  affirm  it.  If  the  third 
Thing  be  afierted,  that  our  Saviour  intended  not  to  de- 
clare any  Thing  at  all  of  Infants  in  this  Propofition,  one 
Way  or  other,  but  had  anEye  only  to  the  Adult  Hearers 
of  his  Gofpel,  who  fhould  embrace  it  or  refufe  it,  then, 
as  no  Argument  can  be  drawn  from  thefe  Words  for 
Infant-Baptifm,  fo  no  Objciftion  againfl  it  can  be  taken 
from  them  •,  but  notwithllanding  what  is  here  afTerted, 
if  there  be  good  Grounds  for  the  Baptifm  of  the  Infants 
of  Chriftians  from  other PafTages  &  Teftimonies  of  facred 
Writ,  they  ought  to  be  baptized.  And  this  is  fufficienc 
to  flop  the  Mouth  of  this  Objcdion. 

Thirdly^  His  next  Enquiry  is,  *'  Whether  Circumcifi- 
*'  on  was  a  Seal  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace  to  Abraharn^ 
**  natural  Seed  ?"  One  would  think, that  the  plainTefti- 
mony  of  Scripture  fhould  leave  thisMatcer  out  of  Quefti- 
on.  I  fnall  briefly  fugged  the  Proofs  of  it,  and  then 
examine  his  Reafons  againft  it. 

I.  God  himfelf  expreily  calls  it  the  Token  cf  his  Co- 
venant. Gen,  17.  J  I.  Te  Jhall  circumcife  the  FkiJj  of  your 
V  2  Fore-Jkin 


292  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  IV. 

Fore  jkin^  itfJjall  be  a  Token  of  the  Covenant  letwixt  me  and 
you.  Now  though  a  Token  fimply  confider'd,  docs  not 
neceffarily  imply  a  Sea),  yerthe  Token  of  a  Covenant  or 
Froniife  can  be  nothing  elfe.  A  Token  annexed  to  a 
Promife  or  Covenant  mull  be  a  certifying  Token,  and 
what  is  a  certifying  Token  but  a  Seal  ?  So  the  Rainbow 
was  a  Token  of  God's  Covenant  and  Promife,  that  he 
would  not  again  overwhelm  the  Earth  with  a  Deluge. 
Gen.  9.13.  I  do  fet  ?n\Bow  in  the  Cloud  (faith  God)  and  it 
fhall  be  for  a  Token  between  me  and  the  Earth,  How  was 
the  Rainbow  a  Token  ot  this  Covenant,  but  as  God  was 
pleafeci  to  appoint  it  to  be  a  Sign  to  confirm  theFaith  of 
J>^oah  and  his  Sons,  in  the  i^romife  that  he  would  not 
ag.iin  bring  a  Flood  upon  the  Earth  •,  and  a  Token  or 
Sign  to  conlirm  Faith  in  a  Pio.'iiie,hath  the  Nature  of  a 
Seal.  And  fuch  a  Token  wasCircunicifion,and  therefore 
a  Seal  of  the  Covenant  ot  Grace  made  \^\i]\Abraham  and 
his  Seed.     Yea, 

2.  God  calls Circumcifion,  i?/j  O^T;?^;;/.  Gen. 17.  13. 
—  My  Covenant  Jhall  be  in  your  Flefl:  for  an  everlafiing 
Covenant.  And  in  what  other  'Stn^^  could  this  pollibly 
be  faid  of  Circumcifion,  that  it  is  the  Covenant  of  God  in 
their  FlefJj^  than  as  it  v/as  appointed  by  God  to  be  a 
confirming  Token  or  Seal  of  that  Covenant  ? 

3.  The  Apoffle  plainly  tells  us,  that  Circumcifion  the 
Token  of  Airaham\  Covenant,\vas  a  Sign  and  Seal  of  the 
Rightecufncfs  of  Faithyllom.^.  1 1.  Which  has  been  made 
evident  beyond  all  reafonable  Exception,  to  intend  the 
Covenant  ot  Faith,  in  Oppoiition  to  the  Covenant  of  the 
Law,  or  ot  Works.  What  Dr. Gill  excepts  againfl  this 
Tefcimony,  will  prefently  come  to  be  examin'd.  There 
is  no  dinnterelled  Ferfon,  but  would  think  theApoftle's 
Tedimony  in  this  Cafe  fliou'd  be  decifive  of  theQ^ieftion. 
But  what  fays  our  Author?  '^  This  mull  be  denied;"  He 
lays,  f  the  Caufe  of  Antipitdobaptifm  makes  it  necefiary 
that  it  fliould,  though  the  Denial  be  a  down- right  Con- 
tradidlion  to  the  Apolfle)  *'  Circumcifion  was  mj  Seal 


Chap.  IV.  cf  Infant  Baptifm.  29^ 

"  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace."  Let  us  hear  his  Reafon?, 

1.  He  fays,  p.  r^6.  "  If  it  Wc.%  the  Covenant  of  Grace 
"  before  that  took  Place  muft  be  v^lthout  a  Seal." 
Anf.  Why  fnould  tills  be  thou:5ht  t^Matcerfo  abfurd  and 
ftrange,  as  he  feems  to  accouhit  ir,  th?.c  :he  Covenant  of 
Grace  fnould  be  for  any  Tu^ne  wuhout  a  vifible  Sign  or 
Seal  ?  Which  is  a  meer  oofu've  Iniiituilon,  that  depends 
on  the  fovereign  Will  of  the  LavvHver,  io  appoint  at 
whacTinne  he  pieafes ;  and  it  beicng.j  not  tc  us  to  require 
an  Account  of  him, why  he  appointed  it  nofooner.Eut  why 
fhou'd  it  feem  more  abfurci,  rhai  the  Coven?inc  ot  Grace 
fhould  be  for  anyTime  without  a  Seal,'.han  that  it  fhould 
be  fo  from  Everlafting  -,  as  it  mull  be  according  to  Dr. 
Gillh  Notions,who  admits  no  other  Seal  of  this  Covenant 
than  theBlood  of  Chriil,and  the  Holy  Spirit  in  theHearts 
of  the  Faithful.  However,  I  have  berore  given  anliin: 
at  the  Reafon  whyGod  firff  appointed  an  initiating  Sign 
and  Seal  to  his  Covenant  in  theDays  of  -^/;r^i?/?;;?,becaufe 
the  Line  of  the  Church, and  theMelnas,  was  then  limited 
to  his  R act', whxh  was  left  at"  large  before  :  Neverthelefs 
the  Covenant  of  Grace  can't  be  faid  to  be  without  a  Seal 
before  the  Inftitution  of  Circumcifion,  fince  from  theBe- 
g'nning,  Sacrifices  were  appointed  to  ratify  Covcnant- 
Tranfaitions  betweenGod  and  his  People ;  and  asTypes, 
they  had  the  general  Nature  of  Seals  to  confirm  thcFaith 
of  God's  People  in  the  Promife  of  the  great  Redeemer, 
and  Redemption  in  his  Blood,  prefigured  thereby. 

2.  "  Circumcifion  (he  fays)  in  the  Infiitution  of  it,  is 
'*  called  a  Sign,  but  not  a  Seal."  And  here  he  tells  his 
Reader,  what  the  Hehre uoSN uvd  is  for  a  Token  or  6'/^77,and 
what  for  a  Seal.  If  our  TranQators  haa  render'd  the  He- 
brew Word  in  Gen.  17.  a  Seal  of  the  Coven^nr,  his  Qucr 
ration  of  the  Original  had  been  fomething  to  hisPurpofe  : 
But  the  original  Word  fignifies,  ^Tckeri  or^'/V;?,  and  our 
TranQators  have  render'd  it  a  Token  -,  therefore  I  can't 
guefs  at  the  Reafon,why  he  fnould  quote  the  Original  fo 
iurmally,  but  to  let  his  Reader  knov/  that  he  underfbood 
liebrezVy   and  could  tell  what  tiie  feveral  Hebrew  Words 

V  3  were 


294*         ^  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Ckap  IV. 

were  for  aToken,and  a  Seal.  But  he  fhould  know  withal, 
thac  a  Token  or  Sign  of  a  Covenant  is  a  confirming  Sign 
(as  I  hav^e  obferv'd)  and  il"  this  be  agreed  to,  the  Thing 
is  granted,  and  Words  and  Syllables  are  not  to  be  ftcod 
upon  :  For  1  fee  noDifference  between  a  confirming  Sign 
annex'd  to  a  Fromife  or  Covenant  for  the  Ratificaticn  of 
it,  and  a  Seal.     But  here  are  feveral  Things  added,  that 
require  fome  briet  Animadverfions.      i.   He  fays, '' Cir- 
*'  cumcifion  was  typical  of  the  Pollution  of  human  Na- 
*'  ture,  propagated  by  natural  Generation."    /Inf.  That 
Circumcifion  reprefented  the  Impurity  of  Man's  Nature 
to  be  done  away  by  Regeneration,  as  doth  Baptifm  alfo, 
is  granted  :  But  how  was  Circumcifion  typical  of  this 
Pollution  ?  Types  are  generally  underftood  to  refer  to 
Things  future,  not  to  Things  paft  •,  but  was  not  the  hu- 
man  Nature   thus   polluted   irom   the   Fall  of  Adam  ? 
2.  That  it  was  typical  "  of  cieanfing  from  it  by  theBlood 
*'  of  Chrifl,and  of  the  inwardCircumcifionof  theHcartj 
*'  bui  did  not  feal  or  confirm  any  fpiritualBlefiing  of  the 
*'  Covenant  to  chofe  on  whom   this   Mark  or  Sign  wasi 
"  fet."  But,  I.  Are  not  cieanfing  by  the  Blood  of  Chrifl:, 
and   the  inward   Circumcifion   of  the  Heart   fpiritual 
Bleffiiigs,  and  therefore  undoubtedly  Bleflings  of  theCo- 
venant  of  Grace  ?  This  cannot  be  denied.     2.  He  owns 
that  Circumcifion  which  God  inflituted  for    a  Token  of 
his  Covenant  was  a  Sign,  f  though  a  typical  one,  he  fays) 
of  thefe  fpiritual BlefTmgs, and  confequently  a  confirming 
Sign  of  the  Covenant  of  Giace,   by  the  foregoing  Rea- 
fonmg'.     But,  3.  To  deny  that  this  Sign  confirm'd  any 
fpiritual  Bleffrngs  In  theCovcnant-  Adminiilration  of  it  to 
thofe,  on  whom  it  was  fet,  is  irrational  and  abfurd,upon 
the  two  former  ConcefTions.    And  how  does  it  reiiecl  on 
theWildornjGoodnefs,  &  Truth  of  God,  to  fuppoie  him 
to  appoint  a  folemn  Token  of  his  Covenant,  wichout  any 
Meaiiin^-^  or  Delign  that  it  ihould  confirm  any  'J  hing  of 
•which  it  is  a  Sign,  unto  thofe  to  whom,  by  hisCommand, 
it  ought  to  be  adminifter'd  ^  How  it  confirms  the  Co- 
venant to  the  Subjeds  of  itsAdminKtraiicn,  I  fliall  fhew 

afier  wards 


Chap.  IV.  of  Infant-Baptiim.  295 

afterwards,  in  difcovering  our  Autlior's  Miflakes  about 
it.  3.  He  fays,  P.57.  *'  it  is  never  caiJed  a  Seal  thro'ouc 
"  the  whole  Old-Teftament."  Anfjv.  But  if  it  be  fo  cal- 
led in  ExprelTions  tantamoant  in  the  Old-Teftament,  as 
when  it  Is  called  a  'Token  of  God*s  Covenant,  which  the 
Nature  of  the  Thing  requires  to  be  underftood,  as  a  cer- 
tifying Token  -,  and  when  it  is  exprefly  called  a  Sign  and 
Seal  in  theNew-Teilument ;  one  might  think  this  would 
lerve  to  filence  all  Cavils.  4.  He  adds,  "  So  far.  is  there 
"  from  any  exprefs  Command,  that  the  Covenant  of 
"  Grace  fhould  be  fealed  to  Infants  by  it,that  there  is  not 
"  the  leafl:  Hint  of  it  given."  Anjzt\  Confident  Afier- 
tions,  withoutProof,  deferve  no  Regard, and  can  have  no 
Force  but  upon  weak  Minds.  The  Covenant  with  A- 
hraham  having  been  prov'd  to  be  the  Covenant  of  Grace, 
and  Circumcifion,  the  Seal  of  it,there  is  more  than  a  bare 
Hint,  even  an  exprefs  Command  of  God,  that  it  fliould 
be  apphed  to  Infants,  Gen,  17.12. 

3.  He  proceeds  to  tell  us,how  he  underftands  CircuVa- 
cifion  to  be  the  Seal  of  the  Rtghteoujmfs  of  Faith.  He  ob- 
ferveSjP.  c.j.  ''  It  is  not  faid  to  be  a  Seal  of  theCovenant 
"  of  Grace."  Anf.  I^hat  it  is  not  faid  fo  in  exprcfsTerms, 
is  granted  \  nor  is  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  as  it  is  com- 
monly called,  ever  mentioned  in  exprefs  Terms  in  Scrip- 
ture, but  has  various  Denominations  given  it.  It  is  call- 
ed the  Promife^  Gal.  3. 1 7.  and  Grace^Kom.6 ,1 4..  the  Law 
of  Faith^Rom.^.2-/.th;Law of  the'Spirit  o/L?/>,Rom.8.2. 
So  the  Right soufnefs  .of  Fatth,  in  Oppofition  to  ih.t  Righ- 
teoufnefs  of  the  Law^  has  been  demon ftrated  to  be  one  of 
the  Scriorure-Terms  or  Characters  .of  thisCovenant.  And 
it  being  faid,  that  Circumcifion  was  a  Seal  of  the  Righte- 
cufnefs  of  Faith ^  the  fame  Thing  is  intended  in  different 
ExprefTions,  as  if  it  had  been  faid  to  be  a  Seal  oi  the  Co- 
venant of  Grace.  Bur  he  adds,/i^/V/.  "  The  plainMean- 
*'  ing  of  the  Apoftle  is,  that  Circiimcifion  was  a  Seal  to 
"  Abraham^  and  aflured  him  of,  or  confirmed  his  Faith 
"  in  this,  that  he  fliould  be  the  Father  of  manyNations, 
"  in  a  fpiritual  ^zvi{z  ;   and   that  the  Kighieoufnefs  of 

V  4  "  Faith 


2^6         A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap. IV." 

"  Faith  which  he  had,  when  he  was  an  iincircumcifed 
''  Perfon,  Ihould  a'fo  come  upon,  and  be  imputed  to  the 
*'  uncircumcifed  Gentiles  &c.  Anfw.  i.  Were  this  In- 
terpretation adi-!jirted,(as  in  a  found  Senfe  it  may,efpeci- 
ally  if  tr.at  Turn  of  rhe  Words  be  received,  which  Dr. 
Ugbtfoot  h:^s  given,  by  fupplying  the  Ellipfis  in  the  Ori- 
gina'  with  theWords,  which  Jhould  he  hereafter ^^  and  thus 
rendering  them  ;  a  Seal  of  the  Righteoufnefs  of  Faith 
"Which  fbouH  be  \\^x^2iix.txinUnctrcumcifion^\.^,  in  theGen- 
tiks, which  ihould  hereafter  believe  inChrift,)  it  does  but 
coniirm  the  Truth,  that  has  been  all  along  pleaded  for  ; 
That-  the  fameRighteoufnefs  of  Faith  \^\\\q\\  Abraham  had 
in  his  Uncircumcuion,comcs  upon  his  Chriilian  Seed,  a- 
mofig  the  uncircumcifed  Gentiles  •,  and  confequently  it 
is  the  fame  Covenant  of  Grace  in  which  this  Privi ledge 
was  di/pens'd  bjth  to  him  &  them  \  which  it  is  the  Scope 
ol"  the  Apoftle  in  this  whole  Chapter  to  prove  :  And  this 
indeed  is  the  BlefTing  of  Abraham  which  is  come  upon 
the  Gentiles,  thro  Faith  in  Chrifl  ;*  This  Righteoufnefs  of 
Faith  the  Apoftle  declares,  was  feaPd  to  Abraham  byCir- 
Cumcifion.  'But,  2.  If  he  means  by  this  Interpretation, 
that  Circuiticifion  was  a  Seal  to  Abraham^onXy  in  theNa- 
tureofaType,  to  confirm  him  in  theBeliet  that  this  Pri- 
vilege of  the  Righteoufnefs  of  Faith,  fliould  be  conferred 
hereafter  upon  his,  believing  Seed  among  the  Gentiles  ; 
but  that  it  was  of  no  Sacramental  Ufe  to  him  to  ratify  the 
Covenant,  or  Seal  the  Righteoufnefs  of  Faith  to  his  own 
Perfon,  it  is  groundiefs  and  ftrain'd.  For  thisRi^hteouf- 
fiefs  of  Faith  was  not  a  meer  Matter  o-f  Promifc  under  the 
Dld-Teftamenr,  referv'd  to  be  fulfilled  in  theDays  of  the 
Gofpel  to  the  believing  Gentiles,  as  a  Privilege  peculiar 
to  them  \  but  has  ever  been  the  Privilege  and  Heritage 
of  the  Church  from  the  Fall  of  /Jam^  and  the  firft  Pro- 
rnife  of  a  Redeemer.  All  theOld-TeilamentSaints  were 
Sharers  in  it ;  which  is  particularly  affirm'd  (as  has  been 
obferved)  of  Noah^  Heb.  ii.j.  and  of  Abraham  the  fame 
is  tefLiiicd,  Gf«. 1 5.6.  And  of  thisCovenant-Privikge, 

Cicum- 
f  Hor.  Hebraic,  in  1  Cor,  j.  19, 


Chap.  IV.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  297 

Circumcifion  was  appointed  10  Abraham  &  to  all  hisnaru- 
ral  Defcendants/vvho  were  Heirs  of  the  Promife,foraSeai. 
Moreover,  I  grair,  it  was  defigned  for  the  Confirmation 
of  all  God's  Promiles  to  him,  and  among  the  rell,that  of 
his  being  a  Father  of  many  Nations  ;  and  being  himfelf 
pollefs'd  of  this  Privilege  of  tlie  Righteoufnefs  of  Faith 
in  hisUncircumcifion,he  may  be  faid  to  be-the  Exemplar, 
or  Type  of  his  adopted  Seed,  among  the  uncircumcifed 
Gentiles,their  flianng  in  the  famePrivilege,being  juRified 
throughFaith  in  Chrifl-jwithout Circumcifion  in  theFlefb, 
which  the  judaizingChrillians  were  fo  fond  of  retaining; 
againft  whom  the  Apoftle  difputes  :  and  in  this  Refem- 
blance  between  the  Type  and  the  Antitype  in  the  Point 
of  Juftification  by  Faith  in  Chrift,  or  of  having  Faith 
imputed  to  them  forRighteoufnefs,  whilfb  uncircumci^'d, 
lies  the  whole  Force  ot  his  Reafoning  in  the  PalTage  un- 
der Confideration,  and  in  the  whole  Chapter.  Neverthe- 
lefs,  that  Circumcifion  was  to  Abraham  &  hrsSeed  a  Seal 
of  the  Covenant  of  Grace, wherein  thisPrivilege  of  Julli- 
fication  by  Faith  is  confirmed  and  conveyed  to  Believers, 
cannot  with  anyShadow  of  Reafon  be  deny'd.  And  'tis 
granted,  in  Effecft,  by  our  Author,  wi:h  Refpe^fl  to  the 
Perfon  of  Abrahara  \  tho'  he  adds,  ''  Could  it  be  tho't 
^'  that  Circumcifion  was  a  Seal  to  others  befides  him  ? 
"  It  could  at  moll  be  only  a  Seal  to  them  that  had  both 
"  Faith  and  Righteoufnefs,  and  not  to  them  that  had 
"  neither/'  But  here  he  fhews  his  Miilake  about  the 
Nature  of  Circumcifion,  as  it  was  a  Seal  of  the  Righte- 
oufnefs of  Faith  ;  he  fuppofes  Circumcifion  to  be  a  Seal 
cf  the  Faith,  or  Righteoufnefs  of  the  Subje6l  that  receives 
it,  which  IS  evidently  a  Miilake  :  Though  /,braham  had 
both  F.iitli  and  Righteoufnefs,  yet  Circumcifion  was  nei- 
ther a  Seal  of  his  Faith,  nor  of  his  Righteoufnefs,  but  of 
the  Righteoufnefs  of  Faith, or  of  the  Covenant  ot  Grace, 
which  gives  Sinners  a  Right  to  theMerciesof  God,  Par- 
don, Life,  &  Salvation,thr6  Faith  in  a  Redeemer.  And 
what  is  here  faid  of  Circumcifion,. agrees  to  the  general 
Nature  uf  ail  Saaaments,  even  thole  of  theNew-Tetta- 

ment 


298  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  IV, 

mcnt,  Baptifm  and  the  Lord's  Supper  ^   they  are  not 
Seals  of  the  Faith  of  the  Receiver,  or  of  his  perfonal  In- 
tereft  in  the  fpiritual  Bleillngs  of  the  Promife,  but  Signs 
to  reprefent,  and  Seals  to  ratify  the  Promife  of  BlefTings 
on  God's  Part,  and  Obligations  to  Duty  on  ours.  They 
are  primarily  defign'd  to  feal  the  Truth  of  God  in  his 
Promife,  for  the  Confirmation  of  our  Faith  •,  and  fecon- 
darily  to  feal  our  Obligations  to  theConditions  &  Duties 
requir'd.     That  the  Sacraments  do   not  abfolutely  feal 
the  Faith,  Righteoufnefs,  or  fpecial  Intcreft  of  particular 
Receivers,  buc  are  Seals  to  confirm  both  Parts  of  the  Co- 
venant, that  is  to  fay,  God's  Promife  to  our  F^aith,  and 
our  Obligations  to  be  his  People,  to  keep  his  Covenant 
and  Commandments,  is  evident :  F'or,  i.  The  Covenant 
is  God's  Ad,  his  Deed  of  Gift,whereby  he  makes  a  Con- 
veyance of  all  goodThings  conducive  to  trueBleflednefs, 
efpecially  of  the  comprehenfive  BiclTing  of  Juiliticatioa 
by  Faith,  onCondition  of  an  humble,  believing,  obedient 
and  thankful  Acceptance.     Hence  the  Covenant  tranl- 
a(fled  with  Abraham^  God  calls  bis  Covenant^  all  along. 
Gen.  1 7.  2,  3,  7,  9.  &c.  I  will  make  my  Covenant  between 
me  and  thee^  &c.  He  has  graciouHy  condefcended  to  hu- 
man Methods,  not  only  in  tranfading  with  hisPeople  in 
a  Way  of  Covenant,  but  \n  annexing  Seals  for  the  folenin 
Ratification  of  it.     Thus  he  appointed  Circumcifion  to 
be  the  Seal  of  his  Covenanr5not  to  afTure  them  they  had 
Faith  and  Righteoufnefs,  but  to  make  fure  the  Truth  of 
his  Promife  to  their  Faith,  and  to  confirm  their  Obliga- 
tions to  believe  the  Promife,  and  to  keep  his  Covenant, 
So  that  Circumcifion  did  not  leal  a  Blank,  though  the 
Subjeds  of  its  Adminittrarion    had  neither  Faich  nor 
Righteoufnefs  :  But  it  feal'd  the  Truth  of  the  Covenant 
as  God's  Ad,  and  thcObligaions  thereby  laid  upon  them 
to  the  Duties  of  it.     2.  I'he  Sacraments  feal  according 
to  the  Tenor  of  the  Covenant,   which  1  have  prov'd  to 
be  Conditional  -,  therefore  the  Sacraments  do  not  feal  the 
Grace  of  the  Covenant  abfolutely,  bar  conditionally,  on 
SuppoUtion  the  Receiver  h?,s  the  Condition  rcquifire  to 

his 


Chap.  IV.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  299 

his  Int^refl  in  the  fpiritual  Privilege.  If  the  Sacraments 
did  abfolutely  ieal  the  Grace  of  the  Covenant  to  all  that 
are  vifibly  qualified  to  receive  them, then  it  will  follow, 
cither  that  ail  luchReceivers  mud  have  favingGrace,and 
be  certainly  faved  ;  or  that  God'sSeal  is,by  hisAppoint- 
ment,  many  Times  to  be  fet  to  a  Blank.  Both  which  are 
manifeftly  abfurd.  But  as  the  Sacraments  feal  the  Cove* 
nant  conditionally, fo  all  the  Subjects  of  their  vifibleAd- 
miniftration  are  alike  capable  of  receiving  them.  And  To 
the  Covenant  may  be  fealed  to  ^auU  or  Judas^  as  well  as 
to  Abraham^  Peter  or  Pcml.  3.  If  Sacraments  were  de- 
figa'd  to  feal  the  Faith  of  the  Receiver,  they  could  not 
be  adminiftred  by  Men,  according  to  divine  Inftiturion. 
For  the  Power  of  fealing  the  Faith  of  another  muft  de- 
pend on  theKnowlege  of  his  interior  State,which  belongs 
only  toGod  :  A.nd  therefore  theSpirirof  God  who  fearch- 
eth  all  Things^  is  the  foleAuthorof  this  Seal  toBelievers. 
Eph.  I.  13.  which  is  of  a  very  different  Nature  from  the 
vifible  Signs  and  Seals  of  the  Covenant.  4.  If  the  Sa- 
craments were  Seals  of  the  Faith  of  the  Receivers,  then 
no  Unbeliever  in  Heart  would  have  a  Plight  to  make 
ufe  of  them  :  But  many  Unbelievers  in  Heart  have  a 
vilible  Right  to  the  Sacraments,and  ought  to  have  them 
admiaiifred  to  them,  according  to  the  Rule  of  Church- 
Adininiftruions.  Ail  that- make  a  vifible  ProfelTion  of 
tne  true  Faith  and  Covenant  Dedication  toGod,  notcon- 
tradidv.  u  in  their  external  Converfation,are  intitled  to  the 
Charity  c:  the  Church,  and  have  a  juft  Right /pri)  Ecck- 
fijc  to  the  Sacrarneats,as  Seals  of  the  Covenant :  Among 
whom,  yer,  no  iVlan  doubts  there  are  many  Hypocrites 
in  Heart,  deifitute  of  a  truly  faving  Faith.  And  hence 
it  appear?,  that  our  Author  is  much  out  of  the  Way,  in 
juppoling  Circumcifion  could  be  a  Seal  of  the  Covenant 
to  none  but  thofe  who  had  Faith  and  Righteoufneis,  as 
Abraham  had. 

And  \iis  fourth  Reafon  flrands  upon  the  fame  ground- 
lefs  and  mjltaken  Suppofition,  That  Sacraments  Seal  the 
Covenant  ot  Grace  to  none  but  true  ^eiieveri.     For  he 

thinks 


300  A  Defence  cf  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  IV. 

thinks  he  has  perplexed  and  puzzled  the  Caj(^  with  this 
Dilemma^  "  That  it  it  was  a  Seai  of  the  Covenant  of 
"  Grace  to  Abraham's^  natural  Seed,  it  muil  be  ei;her  to 
*'  fonae  or  all.  P.  58."  I  anfwer,  without  HefiLation, 
to  all^  according  to  the  foregoing  Reafons  :  "  To  a 
*'  mocking  IJhmael^  to  a  profane  Efau^lo  Corab^  Dalhan,' 
"  and  Abiram^  &c."  The  Covenant  was  feaied  to  each 
of  thefe  by  Circumcifion  in  Infancy,  as  well  as  to  Ifaac 
and  Jacobs  Mofisand  Aaron,  It  only  follows,  that  the 
forn-iCr  were  guilty  of  the  Violation  of  the  Covenant,  by 
their  Apoitacy  andDidoyalty  :  But  how  then  was  it  feaied 
to  thein  ?  I  anfwer,  not  in  this  Senfe,  "that  they  were 
*'  affured  of  an  Intereft  in  it:'*  i.  e.  in  the  fpirituai Privi- 
leges of  it,  as  Dr.  G/// explains  the  Sealing  of  the  Cove- 
nant, contrary  to  what  has  been  alTerted  and  proved. 
But  Circumcifion  feal'd  to  them  the  Truth  of  God's 
Promife,  and  their  Oblif^ation  to  the  Conditions  andDu- 
ties  of  his  Covenant,  and  it  feal'd  their  Intereft  in  pro- 
mifed  BlefTings,  no  otherwife  than  conditionally,or  upon 
Suppofition  ol  the  Conditions  antecedent,  concomitant, 
or  confequent,  wrought  in  them,  or  performed  by  them. 
Fifthly^  He  concludes,  that  fince  "  the  Covenant  was 
"  not  made,  as  we  havefeen,"  He  fays,  "  with  all  the 
*'  naturalSeed  of  yfir^^^;??,  therefore  Circumcifion  could 
"  not  be  a  Seal  of  it  to  them."  But  we  have  'itQn  alfo, 
all  his  Notions  on  this  Head  confuted  :  Though  here 
he  comes  in  again  wirh  his  Limitation,  "  as  far  as  it 
*'  was  a  Covenant  of  Grace."  But  we  ought  not  to 
diftinguifh,  where  the  Word  of  God  does  not :  I  have 
proved  it  to  be  purely  and  entirely  a  Covenant  of  Grace, 
and  not  partly  a  Covenant  of  Grace,  and  partly  a  Cove- 
nant of  Works,  as  Dr.  Gill  imagines,  which  are  utterly 
inconfiftcnt  with,  and  fubverfive  of  each  other.  And 
that  Circumcifion  was  a  Token  and  Seal  of  this  Cove- 
nant, to  all  Abraham^  Poifcrityjimited  as  aforefaid, can- 
not withoutContradi(5tion  to  the  exprefs Words  of  Scrip- 
ture, be  denied.  Or  if  by  his  Limitation,  as  far  as  it 
yoas  a  Covenant  oj  Grace^  he  means  to  fay  no  more  than, 

in 


Chap.  IV.  of  Infant- Baptifm.  301 

/;;  Regard  of  the'  fpiritiial  Elefp.ngs  of  the  Covenant^  it  is 
impertinent,  and  concerns  not  the  prefent  Argument  ; 
for  we  are  now  fpeaking  not  ot  the  fpiritual  Apphcation, 
buc  oi'  the  external  Adniiniilration  of  the  Covenant,  to 
which  the  Sacraments  as  vifible  Sig-ns  and  Seals  beloncr . 
and  ought  to  be  applied,  as  <uch,to  all  the  vifibie  Subjeds 
of  its  Adminill:ration,  and  fuch  were  all  the  natural  Seed 
of  Abraham^  Ci..E.D.     So  I  come  to  his  next  Inquiry. " 

Fourthtj^  "  Whether  Baptifm  fucceededCircumcifion, 
"  and  fo  became  the  Seal  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace 
"  to  Believers, and  their  natural  Seed."  This  (fays  our 
Author)  "  Mult  be  anfwered  in  theNegative  ;  "  Ic  muft 
in  Defence  of  Dr.  GtWs  Hypothefis  :  But  I  fliall  under- 
take to  prove  the  Affirmative  of  both  Parts  ot  the  En- 
quiry. Fif'ft^T\\i\t  Baptifm  fucceeds  Circumcifion.  And 
Secondly^  That  Baptifm  is  aSeal  of  theCovenant  of  Grace 
toBelie vers, and  their  Seed.  And  under  each  Part,  ihall 
.fhew  in  a  few  Words,  the  Weaknefs  and  Impertinence  of 
Dr.  GiWs  Exceptions. 

Firft^  That  Baptifm  fucceeds  in  theRoom  of  Circum- 
cifion, under  the  New-Tellament-Adminiftration. 

I.  The  Teftimony  of  the  Apoftle  is  full  to  this  PiJr- 
pofe,  that  we  fcarce  need  any  otherEvidence,  that  Bap- 
tifm to  Chriftians  comes  in  the  Room  of  Circumcifion 
to  the  Jews  of  Old.  His  Words  are,  in  Col.  2.  11,12. 
In  whom  ( i.  e.  Chrift  )  ye  are  circumcifedwith  the  Circum^ 
cif.on  made  withont\Hands^in  putting  off  the  Body  of  the  Sins 
of  theFle/h^by  theCircumcifion  of  Chrijt :  Buried  with  him  /;? 
Baptifm^  &c.  The  Jews  that  embrac'd  the  Gofpel  (  we 
find  in  the  J^s  of  the  Apoftles,  and  divers  Paflagcs  in 
Paurs  Epitlles  )  were  great  Sticklers  for  retaining  the 
Ufe  of  Circumcifion,  and  annexing  it  to  theDifpenfation 
of  Chrift  :  The  Apoftle  in  the  cited  Paffage,  in  EfFed, 
tells  the  Colcffians,who  were  troubled  with  iuchjudaizersy 
that  they  had  noNeed  of  it,  being  ccmpleat  inChrifl,^\  10, 
And  having  in  theK'ew-TeftamentSacrament  of  Baptifm, 
that  which  fully  anfwers  the  Defign  of  that  ancient  Rite, 
and  which  he  terms  the  Circumcificn  of  Chriji;  or  as  it 

migl  t 


302  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  IV. 

might  be  rendered  the  Chrifiian  Circumcifion,  And  that 
nothing  elfe  but  Baptiim  can  be  intended  by  the  Circum- 
€tfton  ofChrift^  or  the  Chriftian  Circumcirion,  plainly 
appears  •,  For  i.  It  can't  rationally  be  underllood  of  the 
Circumcifion  which JefusChrift  received  when  aninfant : 
For  how  could  xh^  Coloffians  be  faid  to  be  circumcifed 
with  that  Circumcifion  ?  2.  Nor  can  it  with  anyRealon 
be  underftood  of  thefpiritualCircumcifion  of  theHeart  *, 
for  he  had  fpoken  of  that  in  the  foregoingClaule,calling 
it  the  Circumcifion  made  without  Handsy  in  putting  off  the 
Body  of  the  Sins  of  the  Flefo.  This  is  the  fpirituai  Cir- 
cumcifion :  And  what  a  Tautology  would  fuch  a  Senfc 
caufe  in  theWords  ?  'Te  are  circumcifed  with  the  fpirituai 
Circuracifion.  by  the  fpirituai  Circumcifion  of  Chrijl.  But 
the  evident  &:  plain  Meaning  is  •,  Ye  have  the  full  myfti- 
cal  Intent  ot  the  jewifh  Circumcifion  in  the  Circumctfion 
cj  Chrifi,  i.  e.  Baptifm,  which  Chrift  in  his  New-Cove- 
nant has  appointed  to  be  to  us  Chriftians,  inftead  of  Cir- 
cumcifion to  the  Jews  under  the  OldLaw  -,  which  being 
a  bloody  Rite,  and  (befides  its  Sacramental  Nature)  tipi- 
fying  and  prefiguring  Chrift  to  come  and  Hied  hisBlood; 
he  hath  fince  his  Coming  and  Bloodfhed,  abolifhed,  and 
fubftituted  Baptifm  with  Water  in  its  Room.  And  ^^ 
The  Apoftle  has  put  ic  out  of  Doubt,  that  this  is  his 
true  Meaning  -,  tor  having  mentioned  the  Circumcifion  of 
Chrif^he  immediately  adds  in  Way  of  Explanation, beino- 
hiried  with  him  in  Baptifm,  This  is  full  Proof  But  iec 
me  add. 

Secondly^  It  is  further  evident  from  the  manifeft  Ana- 
logy or  Refemblance  between  Circum.cifion  &  Baptifm. 
As,  I.  Circumcifion  was  the  firft  Token  or  Seal  of  the' 
Covenant.  Gen.  17.  11,  12.  None  might  eat  the  Paffover 
hut  thofe  who  were  firft  cir cum cis'd^  Exod.  12.48.  So 
Baptifm  is  the  firft  &  initiating  Token, as  I  have  proved, 
and  without  it  none  are  to  be  admitted  to  theLord'sSup- 
per.  We  are  firft  baptized  into  one  Body,  and  then  mad€ 
to  drink  into  one  Spirit^  i  Cor.  12.  13.-^2.  Baptifm  hath 
the  fame  fpirituai  Signification  with  Circumcifion,  viz. 

Ihe 


Chap.  iV.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  303 

The  inward  Circumcifion  of  theHeart,Regeneration,the 
Mortiiicaticn  of  Sin  •,  which  is  prov'd  by  the  Teftimony 
oftheApoll:ie,abovecited,C(?/.  2.ii,i2.Seeairo/^^w.2.29. 
and  Cbap.  6.  3,4     3.  Baptifm  ferveth  now  to  the  fame 
Ufe  and  Purpofe  under  the  New-Teftament,  whichCir- 
cumcifion  did  of  Old.     As,   i.  Was   Ciicumcifion  the 
Sacrament  of  Admifnon  into  the  Church  of  Ifrael^Exod, 
12  48.      And  is  not  Baptifm  the  fame  with  Refpe6l  to 
the  Chriftian  Church  &  Covenant  ?  Mattb.  28.19.  J^s 
2,  38.     2.  Was  Circumcifion  a  Badge  of  Relation  to 
the  God  of  Ifrael.     Was  it  not  by  this  inflituted  Rite, 
that  the  Sons  of  the  Stranger  joined  themfehes  to  the  Lordy 
and  took  hold  of  his  Covenant^  irai.56.6.  And  is  not  Bap- 
tifm aBadge  of  our  Relation  toChrift  ?  Gal.'^.iy,   3.  Was 
Circumcifion  a  Sign  and  Seal  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace, 
Rom.  4. 1 1 .    And  is  not  the  fame  to  be  faid  of  Baptifm  ? 
Compare  Rom,io.6^^.  with  Mar.  1 6.16. —  4.  Was  Cir- 
cumcifion a  necelTary  Qualification  for  Accefs  to  God's 
Sanduary  ?  Was  it  not  accounted  and  charged  as  a  pro- 
fane Intrufion,  and  Pollution  of  the  Sanduary,  for  any 
to  enter  into  it,  who  were  uncircumcifed  in  Flefh  ?  Ezek, 
44.7,9.  So  Baptifm  with  Water  is  requlfite   to  a  confi- 
dent and  acceptable  Approach  to  the  fkcred  Ordinances 
of  God's  Houfe  under  the  Prefidency  of  our  great  High- 
Prieil  Jefus  Chrift,  Heb.io.ii^ii.  Now  confideringthe 
Refemblance  and  Correfpondence  between  Circumcifion 
and  Baptifm<,  in  fo  many  material  Points,  and  I  might 
add  more  •,  and  confidering  withal  the  CeiTation  of  Cir- 
cumcifion under  the  Gofpcl  •,  and  the  Inftitution  of  Bap- 
tifm for  the  fame  Ufes  &  Ends,  for  which  Circumcifion 
fer^ed  under  the  Law  *,  does  not  all  this  plainly  fpeak 
the  Succefilon  of  one  to  the  other  ?   VTis  granted,   that 
being  different  Rites,  agreeing  to  the  \jifferent  Difpenfa- 
lions  of  the  Covenant,  before  and  fince  Chrift's  Coming, 
there  werefome  accidental  Differences  between  them  ;  yet 
as  Signs  and  Seals  of  the  Covenant,  they  both  aim'd  at 
the  fame  Thing, without  any  fubilantial  Difference  at  all. 
Let  me  only  further  obferve, 

"Thirdly^ 


304         A  Defence  of  the  Bivine  Right         Chap.  IV. 

thirdly ^  EitherBaptilm  fucceeQsCircumcirion,or  there 
is  nothing  at  all  inftituted  in  its  Rooip.  -,    but  the  Chri- 
flian  Church,  by  the  Coming  of  Chrirt,has  been  depriv^d 
ot  a  Sacrament,  which  was  reckoned  oF  lingular  Advan- 
tat^e  to  the  Jewiih  Church,  i^fi*;?;. 3. 1,2.   To  theQijellion, 
What  Profit  is  there  in  Circuracifion  ?      The  Apollle  anf- 
wers,  much  every  IVay.     And  if  fo,  the  ChrilVian  Church 
in  being  deprived  of  it,   has  loft  much  every  Way,if  no- 
thing be  appointed  in  its  Stead.     And  if  any  other  Or- 
dinance befides  Baptifm  under  the  New-l>ftament  fuc- 
ceeds  to  it,   let  it  be  named  if  it  can.     And  if  it  be  ab- 
furd  to  fay,  that  nodiing  is  appointed  inftead  of  Circum- 
cifiojT,  fince  all  the  mott  eminent  &  valuable  Inftitutions 
of  the  Old-Teftament,  tho  abolifhed  at  the  Coming  and 
Death  of  Chrift,  have  yet  had  fcmerhing  anfwerable  ap- 
pointed in  the  New  :  Inftead  of  the  Pairover,  we  have 
the  Lord's -Supper,  which  is  a  Fcaft  upon   the  Sacrifice 
of  Chrift  our  Fafchal  Lamb,  i  Cor.  5.  7.    Infteadof  the 
Jewifli  Prieithood,  we  have  a  Gofpel-Miniftry  :  Inftead 
of  the  meeting  of  the  I'nbes  at  the  Temple,we  have  the 
ChriftianAffemblies  inftituted  •,  &  inftead  of  the  feventh 
Day  Sabbath,  we  have  the  firft  Day  of  the  Week,  the 
Lord's  Day,  for  our  Chriftian  Sabbath  :  And  fince  therq 
is  no  other  Ordinance  of  the  Nev/-Teftament,  that  bids 
for  the  Succeftion  to  Circumcifion,  we  rightly  conclude, 
that  Baptifm,and  that  alone,  is  its  true  Succelfor.    Now, 
if  Baptifm  fucceeds  in  the  Room  of  Circumcifion,  and 
hath  the  fame  Signification,  Ufe  &  Place,  in  theChriftian 
Chu  ch,  that  Circumcifion  had  in  the  Church  oi  Jfrael\ 
it  is  a  reafonable  and  undeniable  Inference  hencc,that  the 
Infants  of  Chriftian  Parents  ought  to  have  it  adminiftrcd 
to  them,  as  Circumcifion  was  cuftomarily  and  conftantly 
by  divine  Appointment,   adminiftrcd  to  the  Infants  of 
Jews  and  Profelytes,  unlefs  they  were  by  fome  plainEx- 
ceplion  debarred  •,  but  no  fuchException  can  any  where 
be   found.     Nor  could  the  Teftimony  of  the  Apoftie 
P^/^/,above-cited,  give  the  leaftSatisfadion  to  the  chrifti- 
anized  Jews,  when  he  tells  them,  that  they  had  the  Cir- 
cumcifion 


Chap.  IV.  of  Infant-Bapcifm.  305 

cumcifion  of  Chrifl  ia  being  baptized,  or  had  Baptifni 
appointed  to  them  by  Chrift,  inllead  of  Circumcifion,  if 
their  Children  were  excepted  -,  and  Chriftian  Baptihn 
\vere  only  for  grown  Men  and  Women  :  For  that  which 
made  the  JewiOi  Chriftians  fo  zealous  for  retaining  Cir- 
cumcifion, was  their  Concern  lor  their  Inlant-Children, 
that  they  might  have  the  Mark  of  God's  Cbvenant  iec 
upon  them,  which  they  had  ever  had.  We  have  obferv'd 
before,  how  bitterly  enrag'd  the  jews  at  Jenifalem  were 
at  Paul^  when  they  heard  that  he  taught  the  Jezvs  which 
were  among  the  Gentiles^  that  they  ought  net  to  circumcife 
their  Children,  Act.  21.  21  And  his  telling  them  they 
had  Baptifm  inilead  of  Circumcifio.n,  had  been  nothing 
to  the  Furpofe,  and  could  by  no  Means  have  fatisfied  the 
Jews,  if  this  Baptifm  was  only  tor  adult  Perfons  j  nor 
could  the  Jews  have  received  it  as  an  Ordinance  anfwer- 
ing  to  their  Circumcifion.  Therefore  there  can  be  no 
Doubt  but  that  the  Apoftle  intended  this  Chriftian  Cir- 
cumcifion, to  fucceed  the  Jewiih,  in  its  Adminiftratioa 
to  Infant  Children,  as  well  as  to  grown  Perfons ;  other- 
wife  he  had  given  no  Anfwer  to  the  Jews  Plea,  for  keep- 
ing up  their  old  Circumcifion.  Now  let  us  attend  to 
what  our  Author  has  to  fay  for  the  Negative. 

His  three  firft  Exceptions  are  taken  from  the  Diffe- 
rences between  Circumcifion  and  Baptifm,  as  to  their 
Subject,  Ufe  and  Manner  of  Adminiltration.  Circum- 
Itantial  Differences  have  been  allowed,  and  none  elfe  can 
he  make  good. 

fi.)  Pie  fays,  P.  58.  "  There  is  no  Agreement  be- 
"  tween  them  in  the  Subjects  to  whom  they  are  admi- 
*'  niftred."  But  none  of  his  Inllances  wherein  they  dif- 
agree,  will  be  yielded, but  that  of  Male  and  Female  \  and 
this  Difagreement  has  been  accounted  for  already  :  1  he 
Diili^6tion  between  Male  and  Female,  which  obtainM 
under  the  Old  Teftament,  in  the  Ordinance  of  Circum- 
cifion, is  taken  away  by  the  Dodrine  ot  the  New-Tefta- 
ment.  When  the  Apoftie  had  told  theGalatians,  thaf.^^ 
many  cf  them  as  had  t^een  baptized  into  Ctriji^  had  fut  on 

X  Chrijt, 


3o6  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  IV. 

Chrift^  Gal.  3.  27.  He  plainly  intimates  in  the  following 
f.  That  among  thofe  who  are  thus  baptized  under  the 
Chriftian  Difpenfation,  there  is  noDiftindion  to  be  made 
hetween  Male  and  Female^  as  there  had  been  of  Old.  But 
there  being  a  perfect  Silence  throughout  theNew-Tefta- 
nient,  as  to  any  fuch  Diflindlion  between  Old  &  Young, 
Aduk  and  Infants,  wiih  Refpedl  to  the  Privileges  o\  the 
Covenant,  is  a  fufficientDocument  to  us,that  there  oughc 
to  be  no  Difference  in  this  Refped  betweenCircumcifion 
sind  Baptilm,  as  to  the  Subject  of  their  Adminiftration. 

(2  J  The  Dilference  he  notes  between  them  as  to  their 
Ufe  is  not  real  but  in  Words  &  Exprefiions  only.     "The 
*'  Ufe  of  Circumcifion  (he  fays)    was  to  diftinguifh  the 
**  natural  Seed  of  Jhrabam  from  others."    And  not  that 
only,but  (he  fhculd  have  added)alfo  to  diftinguifliG entile 
Profelytes,  and  their  natural  Seed,who  joined  themfelves 
in  Covenant  with  the  God  of  Ifrael,  from  Aliens  &:  Ido- 
laters.    And  is  there  not  the  fame  Ufe  of  Baptifm  to 
Chriftian  Profelfbrs,  to  diftinguifh  them  from  Heathens 
and  Infidels  ?  Why  elfe  are   baptized  Chriilians  called 
^he  Circumdjion,  Phil.  2'  3*  but  becaufe  by  Baptifm  they 
are  diftinguilhed  as  the  peculiar  People  of  God,  as  his. 
circumcifed  People  were  of  Old  ?  But  what  does  he  mean 
by  afrigning  this  Ufe  of  Baptifm,    as  different  from  that| 
of  Circumcilion,  viz,   "  I'hat  it  is  to  be  a  diflinguifhing' 
♦'  Badge  of  the  fpiritual  Seed  of  Chrift,    fuch  have  be-' 
*'  lieved  in  him,  &c.''  If  he  means  by  the  fpiritual  Seed| 
of  Chrifb  true  Believers  only,  or  truly  regenerate  Perfons,, 
y:\urh  is  the  S^niQ  he  had  before  given  of  the  fpiritual 
Seed,  and  in  v;hich  Senfe  only  it  can  be  different  from^ 
Circumcifion,   I  deny  that  Baptifm  is   a  diftinguifhing 
Badge  of  fuch  a  fpiritual  Seed  -,  for  many   befides  the 
?ruly  Regenerate  wear  this  Badge,  as  our  Author  him- 
felf  conkP/es;  P. 60.  Or  if  he  means  it  to  be  a  diftinguifh- 
ing Badge  of  all   that  come  to  Chrift  by  a  Gofpel-Pro< 
ftriiion  o\  Faith  in  him,   it  differs  nothing  from  the  Ufe 
of  Circumcifion,  which  was  defigned  to  mark  out  a  pe- 
culiar Covenant- People  of  God.     Agamhefays,  P.  ^g, 

"  1  h(J 


Chap.  IV.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  307 

"  TheUfe  of  Circumcifion  was  to  fignify  theCorruption 
'**  of  humane  Nature,  the  Neceflky  of  Regeneration,— 
*'  and  of  Cleanfing  by  the  Blood  of  Chrift."  And  isnoc 
all  this  fignilied  in  Baptifm,  when  it  is  called  the  tVafmng 
of  Regeneration^  and  when  it  is  faid  that  Chrifi  gave  him^ 
felf  for  his  Churchy  that  he  might  fanEtify  and  deanfe  it 
with  the  tVafhing  of  Water — ?  And  what  but  the  fame 
Thing  can  be  meant  by  the  Anfwcr  of  a  good  Confcience 
towards  God  ?  Which  he  makes  to  be  a  different  Ufe  of 
Baptifm.  And  does  Baptifm  "  reprefent  the  Sufferings, 
*'  Burial,  andRefurredion  of  Chriit  ?"  And  didnotCir- 
cumcifion  (in  its  typical  Nature)  reprefent  and  prefigure 
the  Sufferings  and  Bloodfhed  of  Chrifi  ?  But  indeed  it 
is  not  the  Sacramental  Ufe  of  Baptifm,  to  reprefent  the 
Death,  Burial,  or  Refurredion  of  Chrift  •,  which  it  may 
do  to  all  that  attend  the  Adminiftration,  to  whom  it  is  no 
Sacramental  Sign  orSeal  of  anyGofpelPrivilege  :  But  tho 
Biptifm  {"as  all  the  other  Sacraments)  hath  iieference  to 
the  Death  of  Chrift,in  which  theNew- Covenant  is  found- 
ed and  confirmed,  yet  the  Ufe  proper  to  it  as  a  Sacra- 
ment, is  to  fignify  and  feal  the  Benefits  of  Chrifl's  Death 
to  the  Receivers,  and  to  reprefent  and  ratify  a  fpiritual 
Conformity  thereto,  in  the  MortiScatioa  ot  Sin,  or  the 
putting  off  the  Body  of  the  Sins  of  the  FkfJj^  and  walking 
in  Newnefs  of  Life,  wherein  it  fully  correfponds  witli 
Circumcifion.  CoL  2.  11,  12.  Rom.  6.  3,  4. — Laflly  he 
fays,  *'  It  pre-requires  Repentance  and  Faith."  Anfw. 
It  does  fo  of  all  unbaptized  adult  Perfons  ;  and  fo  did 
Circumcifion  of  all  adult  Profelytes  to  the  Covenant  of 
the  Godof  Ifrael.  If  a.  ^6.  6.  And  as  their  Infant-Chil- 
dren were  circumcis'd  upon  their  Parents  Profeffion,  {o 
jareall  the  Infant  Children  of  Chriilian  Profeffors  now 
!  to  be  baptized.  In  all  his  Inflances,  tliere  is  no  real 
jDifference  in  the  Ufe  &Defign  ofthefe  two  Sacraments, 
but  only  in  the  different  Turn  of  Exprcflion  he  has 
given  to  each  of  their  Ufes. 

(3.)  The  third  Difference  Dr.  Gill  mentions,  is  in  the 
MannerofAdminiftration,  which  has  been  allowU  "The 

X  2  "one 


30 8  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  IVo 

"  one.  (he  fays  J  is  by  Blood,  the  other  by  Water,  the  one 
*'  by  an  Incifioi),  —  the  other  by  an  Immerfion,  &c." 
All  meer  accidental  Differences  proper  to  theAdminiflra- 
tion  of  thole  diftcrent  ilites  :  This  Reafon,  inftead  of 
making  any  Thing  for  his  Purpofe,  ferves  rather  to  con- 
firm the  contrary,  that  Baptilm  truly  fucceeds  t(>Circum- 
cifion  :  For  that'  which  fucceeds  muft  be  diftind:  from 
that  which  went  before,  otherwife  it  is  the  fame  and  not 
a  SuccelTor  ,  and  if  there  were  no  Differences  between 
them,  Baptifm  could  not  be  faid  to  be  the  Succeffor  of 
Circumcifion,  but  the  fame  Thing  with  it.  And  yet  he 
concludes  with  his  ufual  Confidence,  that  "  Ordinances 
''  fo  much  differing — the  one  can  never  be  thought  to 
"  come  in  the  Room  and  Place  of  another."  Let  the 
Reader  judge. 

(4.)  He  adds,  "  That  which  puts  it  out  of  all  Doubt 
''  thatBaptifm  can  never  be  faid  to  fucceedCircumcifion, 
*'  is"  (now  he  prepares  his  Reader  for  a  Demonftration, 
let  us  hear  it)  "  That  Baptifm  was  in  Force  &  Ufe  before 
*'  Circumcifion  was  aboiifh'd,  and'  its  Practice  difconti- 
"  nued,  or  ought  to  be  difcontinued."  Anf,T\\\s  Reafon, 
inffead  of  corning  up  to  a  Demonftration,  falls  fbort  of 
the  loweft  Kind  of  Evidence,  even  a  bare  Probability  : 
'Tis  as  il:  one  fl:iould  go  about  to  Y>\-ov(i^i\\2iiSolomon  could 
never  be  faid  to  be  Davidh  Succeffor,  becaufe  Solomon  be- 
gan his  Reign  before  Dazid  expired,  and  his  Reign  was 
difcontinued.  Would  not  fuch  an  Argument  appear  ri- 
diculous ?  Yet  It  is  no  better  Argument  that  i3r.  Gill 
brings  againft  Baptifm's  fucceeding  Circumcifion.  If  he 
could  have  prov'd  that  Circumcifion  had  been  all  along 
contemporary  with  Baptifm, and  that  neither  of  them  had 
furviv'd  the  other,  he  had  done  fomething  to  the  Pur- 
pofe  :  But  from  Baptifm's  being  brought  into  Ufe  a  few 
Tears  betorc  Circumcifion  expir'd,  to  infer  that  it  can 
never  be  faid  to  fucceed  Circumcifion,  proves  nothing, 
but  that  frivolous  Pretences  will  pafs  with  fome  Men  for 
Demonftration,  when  ftrongly  pre- pofiefs'd  in  Favour  of 
fume  darling  Scheme.  But  whv  may  notBaptifm  be  faid 

t© 


Chap.  IV.  of  Infant-Baptlfm.  309 

to  fucceedCircumcifion  now  it  has  fnrviv'd  it  thefe  feven- 
teen  Hundred  Years,and  ftood  alone  for  all  the  miin  fub- 
ftantial  Ends  and  Ufes  for  which  Circumcifion  ierv'd  be- 
fore Chrift's  Coming  md  Death  ?  —  But  in  Truth,  tho' 
Baptifm  began  to  take  Place,  and  was  adminiftred  b^ 
John^  and  our  Lord's  Difciples,  fuppofe  three  or  four 
year>  before  his  Death,  yet  it  was  not  fully  fettled  as  the 
Door  of  AdmiiTion  into  theChriflianChurch,  tojews  and 
Gentiles, till  after  our  Lord'sRefurredion.  Mattb.2^.1^. 
Where  we  find  the  firft  CommilTion  recorded,  as  given 
by  Chrift  to  his  Minifters,  to  baptize ;  at  which  Time,' 
I  fuppofe,  our  Author  will  allow,  Circumcifion  ought  to 
be  difcontinued,  having  expir'd  atChriil\sDeath  ;  though 
the  Pradice  of  it, and  of  other  Rites  of  Mofes^  was  tole- 
rated, in  Compliance  with  the  Weaknefs  of  the  Jews,till 
theDeftru6lion  of  their  Temple. 

(5.)  Our  Author  goes  on  to  fay,  P.  60,  "  That  It  has 
*'  been  prov'd  already,  that  Circumcifion  was  no  Seal  of 
"  the  Covenant  of  Grace  to  Ahraharas  natural  Seed," 
(and  what  Sort  of  Proofs  they  are  v/hich  he  has  aliedg'd^ 
and  how  little  they  avail  to  his  Purpofe,  we  have  alfo 
{ttn  already)  therefore  he  adds,  "  Could  it  be  prov'd 
"  thatBaptifm  fuccecds  it,  it  would  not  follow  that  Bap- 
"  tifm  is  a  Seal  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace."  It  is  no 
Wonder  our  Author  is  led  by  his  erroneous  Principle 
before  noted,to  deny  that  the  Sacraments  in  general,  and 
particularly  Baptifmsire  Seals  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace. 
His  Notion  is,  that  the  Sacraments  (if  admitted  to  be 
Seals  of  the  Covenant)  mufl  feal  abfolutely  fcontraryto 
the  Tenor  of  the  Covenant,  as  I  have  proved}  and  that 
:hey  aiTure  the  Receiver,  of  his  pnrricular  Interefl  in  the 
Blelfings  and  Privileges  of  it :  Which  Notion  has  ht^xx 
fuoiciendy  refuted.  I  fiiill  therefore  now  proceed,  as  v/as 
propos'd,  to  prove  the  lecond  Part  of  the  Quellion,  viz. 

Secondly  That  BaptUm  is  a  Seal  of  the  Covenant  of 
Grace  to  Believers,  and  their  Seed.      This  I  fhall  make 
'vident  in  a  few  Words. 

(i.)  If  Baptifm  fucceeds  Circumclfioa  in  the  general 

X  0  Nature 


'3 10         A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap, IV. 

Nature  of  an  initiating  Sacrament,  then  Baptifm  is  a  Seal 
of  the  Covenant  of  Grace.  This  Confequence  is  here  un- 
reafonably  denied  by  our  Author;  but  fincc  it  has  been 
prov'd  that  Circunicifion  was  a  Seal  ot  the  Covenant  of 
Grace,  and  Hievved  that  one  Inftance  of  the  Analogy  or 
Similitude  between  Circumcifion  &  Baptifm  is,that  they 
are  both  Signs  and  Seals  of  the  Righteoufnefs  of  Faith  \ 
it  unavoidably  follows,  that  Baptifm, fucceedingCircum- 
cifion,  is  a  Seal  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace.  He  might 
with  more  Reafon  denyBaptifm  to  be  a  Sacrament  of  the 
New-Covenant :  for  theTerm  Sacrament  is  not  fcriptural, 
but  that  of  a  Sign  and  Seal  is  exprefly  in  Scripture  apply 'd 
to  Circumcifion.  Which  Term  fas  all  Divines  agreej 
5s  exprelTive  of  the  general  Nature  of  Sacraments,  and 
applicable  to  thofe  of  the  New-Teftament,  and  particu- 
larly to  Baptifm. 

(2.)  If  Imiflake  not,  Baptifm  has  the  Denomination 
of  a  Seal  in  theNew-Teftament.  Joh.  3.  '^'^.He  that  hath 
received  his  Tejlimony,  hath  fet  to  his  Seal^that  God  is  true. 
The  Context  before  and  after  this  Paragraph,  that  con- 
tains thefeWords  o^John  the  Baptift,  fpeaks  of  Men's  re- 
ceiving Jefus  his  Baptifm.  That  which  occafion'd  this 
Difcourfe  of  John^  v/as  a  Queflion  about  Baptifm,  and  a 
Complaint  that  the  greater  Number  reforted  to  the  Bap- 
tifm of  Jefus^  f.  25,  26.  and  the  Evangeliil  continues 
hisNarration,  in  giving  the  Reafon  why  Chrifl  Mtjudea, 
becaufe  the  Pharifefs  had  heard  that  Jefus  made  and  bap- 
tiz'd  more  Difciples  than  John^  &c.  Chap.  4.  i,  2,  3.  So 
the  Meaning  of  the  Baptill's  Words  feem  to  be.  He  that 
receiveihChn'iih  Teffimony  byFaith,is  thereupon  baptiz'd, 
which  is  as  x.\\t  fettiyig  to  his  Seal,  that  he  believes  God  is 
true.  Chrifi's  Teflimony  furely  was  nothing  c\^Q  but  a 
Publication  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace  ;  and  the  Believer 
gives  Honour  to  the  Truth  of  God  in  this  Covenant,hy 
a  publick  Acknowledgment  of  it  in  his  Baptifm,  and  fo 
doth  as  it  were/f/  to  his  Seal,  &c.  For  Baptifm  is  a  mu- 
tual Seal,  and  on  the  Part  of  the  baptiz'd,  it  is  -a  folemrt 
Declaration  of  his  being  perfuaded  of  the  divine  Truth 

of. 


Chap.  IV,  ^/ Infant-Baptifm.  311 

of  the  Gofpel,  and  that  God  is  true  in  all  hisPromifcs  of 
Pardon  and  eternal  Life  by  his  Son  Jefus  Chriil:  •,  and  a 
folemn  Engagement  toanfwerable  Sincerity  &  Faichful- 
nefs  in  the  Obfervance  of  Gofpel-Duties.  So  the  Words 
may  be  underftood,  without  flying  to  a  Metaphor  :  and 
when  the  confirming  Work  of  the  Spirit  in  Believers  is 
fo  often  exprefs'd  by  the  Metaphor  of  fealing,  particu- 
larly I  Eph.  i^.  In  whmn  after  that  ye  believed^  ye  were 
fealed  with  the  holy  Spirit  of  Promife  ;  I  fee  noReafon  why 
the  Allufion  may  not  be  to  Baptifm,  the  outward  vifible 
Seal  of  the  New-Teftament.  Though  I  am  far  from  lay- 
ing the  Strefs  of  the  Proof  on  this  Interprecation. 

f  3.)  Nothing  lefs  may  be  argu'd  from  Chrid's  annex- 
ing Baptifm  to  his  Gofpel- Covenant,  (Mark.  16.  16.) 
than  that  it  was  defign'd  to  be  the  Seal  of  it :  He  that  be- 
Ueveth  and  is  baptized,  (hall  be  faved, — He  that  believeth 
fhall  befaved^  is,  the  Subftance  of  the  evangeHcal  Cove- 
nant ;  but  why  mufl  he  be  baptized  ?  Why  is  Baptifm 
annex'd  to  this  Covenant  ?  What  other  Account  can  be 
given,  but  that  Chrift  defignM  it  as  a  vifible  Token  or 
Sign  for  the  Conlirmation  of  the  Covenant  ?  Now  a  vi- 
fible Token  inftituted  to  confirm  a  fpiritualCovenant  or 
Promife,  is  nothing  elfe  but  a  Seal ;  as  was  argu'd  before, 
and  the  fame  may  be  argu'd  from  A^,  2.  38,  39. 

(4  J  The  Form  of  Adminiilration  prefcrib'd  by  Chrift 
to  hisMinifters,  plainly  determines  Baptifm  to  be  a  Seal 
of  the  Covenant.  Matth.  28.  19.  Baptizing  them  in  the 
Name  of  the  Father^  and  of  the  Son^  and  of  the  Holy  Ghofi, 
WhichForm  of  Words  is  to  be  underftood,  (i  J  On  the 
Minifl:er'sPart,ro  declare  his  adting  in  theName  or  in  the 
Power  and  Authority  derived  from  the  Father^  Sen,  and 
Holy  Ghofl.  (2.)  On  the  Part  of  the  baptized,  as  import- 
ing their  Belief  in  and  Acceptance  of  this  bleflfedTrinity 
of  Perfons,  in  their  feveral  Relations,  and  Operations  in 
the  Work  of  ourRedemption,  together  with  the  devoting 
and  dedicating  themfelves  to  the  Faith,Worfhip,  Obedi- 
ence and  Service  of  thefe  divine  Perfons  fas  the  Greek 
Phrafe,  into  theNamc^  &c.  imports)  and  wh^t  otherCon- 

X  4  ftrudioa 


312  'A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  IV. 

flru6llon  tan  be  made  of  the  Adminifi:ration  of  this 
ChritiianRite,  as  is  i:  here  prefcrib'd  by  ourSaviour,than 
that  it  is  a  foktnn  vifible  Tranfaftion  of  the  Covenant 
between  God  and  Believers  ?  Wherein  God  offers  him- 
felt,  rather,  Son, and  Holy  Ghofb,  and  foiemnly  engages 
to  be  their  God  and  Father,  Redeemer,  and  Sam^^htier  •, 
and  Believers  in  being  baptized  into  his  Name,  foiemnly 
dedicate  themfelves  to  him, and  reciprocally  engage  to  be 
to  him  a  People  :  Now  if  all  this  does  not  fpeak  Baptifm 
to  be  a  folemn  Confirmation  or  Seal  of  theCovenant  thus 
tranfaded,  it  can  have  no  Meaning  at  all,  but  mufl  (land 
ior  a  meer  infignificant  Ceremony. 

f  5  J  I:  may  be  further  argued  from  its  being  a  folemn 
Obligation  on  the  baptized  unto  covenanted  Duties. 
I  Pe:.  3.  21.  ne  like  Figure  whereunto^  even  Baptifm  doth 
now  a[fo  fave  us^  not  the  putting  away  of  the  Filth  of  the 
FlefJj^  but  the  Anfwer  of  a  good  Confcience  towards  God. 
NoaFs  Ark  was  a  Figure  or  Type,  andBaptifrn  is  a  like 
F'igure,  vifible  Reprefentation,  or  Sign  of  the  Privilege 
of  Salvation.  And  in  thef^  Words  the  Apoflle  (hews 
■wherein  the  favingEfBcacy  of  Baptifm  confifts.  (i.)  Ne- 
gatively, not  in  putting  away  the  Filth  of  the  Flefh  :  Not 
in  the  meer  outward  Slgn^  the  wafning  the  Body  with 
M^ater.  (2.)  Pofitively,  in  the  Anfiver^thc  Interrogation, 
the  Stipulation,  the  Covenant,  the  1  eftimony,  (as  it  is 
variously  rendered)  of  a  good  Confcience  towardsGod.  Take 
it  according  to  our  FranQatlon,  this  pre-fuppofes  God's 
Interrogation  or  Demand  of  the  Party  to  be  baptized  ; 
Doll  thou  renounce  the  Flelh,  theWorid,and  theDevil  } 
dofb  thou  believe  in,  and  take  me  for  thy  God  inChnil  ? 
And  it  is  a  folemn  Confent  to  this  Demand,with  an  up- 
right Intention,  follow'd  with  a  confcientious  Difcharge 
ot  the  baptifmal  Vow,  which  is  the  Anfwer  cf  a  good 
Ccnjcience  towards  God.,  that  entitles  the  baptized  unto 
Salvation.  Whence  it  appears,  that  in  Baptifm  there 
pafies  a  Covenant  between  God  and  the  Party  to  be  bap- 
tized ;  who  enters  into  an  Engagement,  Stipulation,  or 
Vow  of  F>.ith  and  Dedication  to  God  throui^h  Chriil  -, 

which 


Chap.  IV.  c/ Infant-Baptifm.  313 

which  connotes  or  implies  a  Promife  or  EngagemcRt  on 
God's  Part,  to  make  good  his  Covenant  of  Salvation. 
And  if  this  be  the  I'hing  fignified  in  Baptifm  (as  is 
plainly  to  be  gathered  from  the  Apollle's  Words)  then 
Baptifm  mud  be  a  coniirming  Sign  or  Seal  of  this  Co- 
venant. 

(6.)  It  may  be  argued  from  its  being  the  Sacrament 
of  Admiflion  into  the  vifible  Church,  i  Cor.  12.13.  Fcr 
by  oneSpirit  we  are  all  baptized  into  one  Body.  By  theSpirit 
as  the  internal  operative  Principle,  and  by  Baptifm  as 
the  vifible  Symbol,  all  Chriftians  are  congregated  and 
joined  together  in  one  myftical  Body  under  Chnfl  the 
Head  •,  that  is,  in  one  Chriftian  Church.  Now  theChri- 
ftian  Church  has  no  oiher  Foundation, as  I  have  fliewed, 
than  theCovenant  oiGrace  inChrift  vifibly  tranfaded  &  ap- 
ply'd  to  particularPerfons,whofe  Acceptance  of,&Conrent 
to  this  Covenant,is  requifite  to  their  AdmifTion  with  their 
Infant-Seed,  as  Members  of  the  vifible  Church.  So  that 
to  be  admitted  into  the  vifible  Church, is  the  fameThing 
in  other  Words,  with  being  admitted  into  the  Covenant 
of  Grace,  in  it's  vifible  Adminiilration.  And  to  deny 
that  Baptifm  is  an  outward  Sign  &  Seal  of  thisCovenant, 
is  in  Effect  to  deny  it  to  be  a  Sacrament  of  Admiffion, 
or  Initiation  into  the  vifible  Church. —  And  I  may  add, 
that  whateverSignification.whatever  Place  in  theChriftian 
Scheme  be  confiilently  with  the  Docftrine  of  Scripture 
afiign'd  toBaptifm,!  doubt  not  to  make  it  appear  thence, 
that  Baptifm  is  aSeal  of  theCovenant.  OurAdverfaries, 
I  hope,  will  grant  it  to  be  a  Sign  or  Symbol,  IVlark  or 
Badge  ot  the  Chriftian  ProfelTion  •,  tho'  they  greatly  err 
in  making  it  a  bare  Sign.  Now  theChrillianProfeilion 
includes  in  it  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  as  it  is  a  Profefilon 
of  Faiih  and  Obedience  to  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift  :  Faith 
rela'-es  to  thePromifesof  theCovenant  •,  Obcdience,ro  the 
Terms  and  Precepts  of  it  ;  fo  that  our  Chriftian  Pru- 
fefnon  is  an  Acknowle2:ement  of  the  Covenant  in  borh 
Parts  of  it  ;  the  Promifes  that  make  God's  Part,and  the 
precepts  ours.     And  Baptifni  being  own'd  to  be  a  vifible 

Symbol 


314  ^  defence  of  the  Divin  Right  tn  ap.  IV. 

Symbol  or  Token  of  this  Acknowlegement,  it  moft  Cer- 
tainly follows,  that  it  is  not  only  a  Sign  to  reprefentjbut 
a  Seal  to  ratify  Covenant-Promifes  to  our  Faith,  and  our 
Covenant-Engagements  to  theDuties  required  ;  for  being 
granted  to  be  a  Token  of  the  Chriiiian  Profeflion,  it 
can  be  no  otherwife  fo  confideredjthan  inRelation  to  the 
Covenant  of  Grace,  which  is  the  whole  Matter  of  the 
Chriftian  ProfefTion,  and  therefore  muft  be  a  confirming 
Token  -,  and  if  this  be  granted  too,  I  think  it  not  worth 
while  to  contend  about  Words  ;  when  (as  I  faid  before) 
I  take  a  confirming  Token  of  the  Covenant  to  be  of  the 
fame  Nature  with  a  Seal.  And  from  what  has  been  faid, 
I  think  it  fufficiently  evident,  that  Baptifm  now  is,  what 
Circumcifion  once  was,  a  Sign  &  Seal  of  the  Covenant 
of  Grace  to  Believers  and  their  Seed.  Bur  our  Author, 
it  feems,  is  not  of  the  fame  Mind  :  Baptifm  f  with  hitn) 
is  no  Se^l  ©f  the  Covenant  of  Grace.  But  he  fcarce 
pretends  to  offer  any  Reafons  for  the  Negative  •,  all  he 
fays,  is,  ( i )  *'  There  are  manyPerfons  who  have  been  bap- 
"  tized,and  yet  not  in  theCovenantof  GracCj^  to  whom 
*'  it  was  never  fealed."  P.  60.  The  Reader  will  foon 
perceive,  that  this  AfTertion  proceeds  on  his  falfe  Princi- 
ples, before  rejeded  and  confuted,  (i)  On  his  miffaken 
Notions  about  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  and  an  Intereft  in 
that  Covenant,  that  none  but  the  Ele6t,  the  Regenerate, 
and  fpiritual  Seed  are  in  Covenant  with  God  ;  as  if  God 
had  inftituted  no  vifible  Adminiifration  of  his  Covenant 
with  Men.  (2  J  On  his  groundlefs  Suppofition,  that  the 
Covenant  is  fealed  abfolutely,  and  the  Receiver  thereby 
afTured  of  his  perfonal  Interefl  in  thePrivileges  of  it.  The 
Error  and  Abfurdity  of  both  which  Conceits  have  been 
fufHciently  expofed. — But  here,his  Reader  mufl  have  the 
Candour  to  over-look  the  Contradidtion  he  runs  into,  to 
what  he  had  faid  in  the  foregoing  Page,  That  Baptifm  is, 
"  a  dift-inguifning  Badge  of  the  fpiritual  Seed  of  Chrifl  •, 
"  BeHevers  who  have  put  him  on."  Thefe,  and  none  but 
thefe  he  will  allow  to  be  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace  :  And 
if  Baptifm  be  the  diftinguilhingBadge  of  thele,how  comes 

it 


I  Chap.  IV.-  ^/ Infant-Baptlfm.  315 

I  it  to  pafs,  that  many  Perfons  may  be  baptized,  and  yet 
not  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace  ?  Or  let  him  try  his  Skill 
to  anfwer  this  Argument,  'viz.  As  many  as  have  put  on 
Cbrijf,  are  in  theCovenant  oj  Grace  :  But  as  many  as  have 
been  baptized  into  Chrift^  have  put  on  Chrift,  The  major 
Propoficion  is  his  own,  tho  not  in  Terms,yet  undeniably 
in  Senfe,  for  he  makes  the  putting  on  Chrift  one  Cha- 
rader  of  the  fpiritual  Seed,  who  are,  with  him,  the  only 
Perfons  that  are  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace  :  The  minor 
is  the  Apoftle's,  Gal,  3.27.  How  then  will  he  avoid  the 
Conclufion,  Therefore  as  many  as  are  baptized  into  Chrijly 
are  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace.  Diredlly  contrary  to  his 
AlTertion.  (2.)  He  fays,  "  On  the  other  Hand,  aPerfon 
"  may  be  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace,and  it  may  befealed 
"  to  him,  and  he  may  be  comfortably  aflured  of  his  In- 
*'  tereft  in  it,  tho  as  yet  not  baptized."  ibid.  Anf  {\.) 
What  maybe  in  the  extraordinary  Difpenfition  of  God, 
is  not  to  be  difputed  ;  but  he  would  be  hard  put  to  it,to 
produce  an  Initance  in  Fad,  df  an  unbaptizedPerfon  un- 
der the  ordinary  Difpenfation  of  the  Gofpel,  having  the 
Covenant  fealed  to  him,  in  his  Senfe,  that  is,  his  having 
a  comfortable  AfTurance  of  his  Inrereft  in  it :  and  the 
Suppofition  hereof  does  but  tend  to  leiTenMen's  Regard 
to  God's  Ordinance  of  Baptifm.  But  (2.)  Suppofing 
this  may  be  the  Cafe  by  an  extraordinary  Difpenfation, 
yet  it  does  by  no  Means  follow,  that  Baptifm  is  nor  the 
vifible  Seal  of  theCovenant  •,  for  we  muft  be  govern'd  by 
ordinary  Rules  ;  and  that  inward  comfortable  AfTurance 
he  fpeaks  of,  is  improperly  &  metaphorically  calledy^^/- 
ing.,  and  that  rather  of  the  Grace  of  the  Covenant,  than 
of  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  and  is -a  Thing  quite  diftincl: 
from,  and  no  Ways  inconfillent  with  the  ordinary  in- 
fl'ituted  Seal  of  the  Covenant  in  Chriliian  Baptifm, which 
is  enjuin'd  as  Matter  of  Duty  on  our  Part  ♦,  whereas  the 
other  is  Matter  of  pure  Difpenfation  on  God's  Part. — - 
Thus  I  have  very  minutely  and  particularly  confidered 
and  diicufs'd  all  hisArguments  &  Objections,and  l>iewed 
them  to  be  impertinent,groundlefs  and  inconclufive  \  and 

Kave 


^i6  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  IV. 

have  vindicated  thcArgumentforlnfantsRight  toBaptlfm, 
from  the  Tenor  of  God's  Covenant  Wixh  Abraham  and  his 
Seed,  with  the  annexed  Seal,  from  all  his  Exceptions. 

But  Confidence,  I  fee,  is  a  mafterlefs  Thing,   and  not 
to  be  dealt  with  or  put  to  Silence  by  Reafon.     Our  Au- 
thor, as  if  he  were  now  Mailer  of  the  Field,  throws  Con- 
tempt about  him,  upon  all  that  are  not  of  hisSentiment. 
■  The  Minifter  in  the  Dialogue  had  not  heard  of  fuch  a 
Man  as  Dr.  G/V/,  when  heobferves  "  That  it  is  allowed 
*'  on  allHands,  that  Baptifm  is  a  Token  or  Seal  of  the 
*•  Covenant  of  Grace."  (Dial.  P.  20.)  Our  Author  re- 
citing that  PaiTage,fays  P.  60.  "  It  is  apopularClamour, 
*'  a  vulgar  Miftake,  that  either  that  or  the  Lord's  Sup- 
"  per  are  Seals  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace."      This  is  a 
iLrangeDifcovery,  and  New,';  (  if  not  borrowed,  as  I  am 
apt  to  think,    from  the  Socinians )  all  FroteHayit  Divines 
have  hitherto  fppken  of  the  Sacraments  of  the  New-Tef- 
tamenr,  as  Seals  of  the  Covenant,  particularly  Baptifm 
(  which  is  alfo  termed  by  the  ancient  Writers,  a  6V^/,  and 
a  Mark)  and  have  thought  they  had  fpoken  according  to 
the  common  Senfe  of  the  Vulgar,  as  well  as  agreably  to 
the  Do6lrine  and  Language  ot  the  Holy  Scripture.    But 
here  comes  this  fuperiour  Gentleman,  and  corrects  their 
Miflake,and  tells  them  they  are  all  carried  away  with  po- 
pularClamour,  and  a  vulgar  Error  !     But  the  word  is,he 
involves  the  Apoftle  Faul  in  the  fime  Cenfure,  who  was 
the  great  Patron  and  Maintainer  of  this  vulgar  Error  •, 
when  he  fpeaks  of  Circumcifion    as  the  Sign  and  Seal  of 
the  Righteoufnefs  of  Faith  •,    which  is  exprefTive  of  the 
general  Nature  of  all  Sacraments,  even  thofe  "of  theNew- 
I'eflament,  as  has  been  (hewed.     But  what  are  his  Rea- 
fons  ?  You  will  find  them  as  weak,   as  his  AiTurance  is 
llrong.     He  fays,  P.  61.  *'  The  Blood  of  Chrifl  is  the 
"  Seal  &  the  onlySeal  of  it. — And  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the 
"  only  Earneil,  Seal  and  Sealer  of  the  Saints."  But(i.) 
The  Blood  of  Chrift  is  no  where  in  Scripture  called  the 
Seal  of  the  Covenant  of  (irace  :    which  Term  is  yet  ex- 
prefly  applied  to  one  of  the  Sacramcntjv,  and  fpeaks  the 

g;cncral 


Chap.  IV.  ^/ Infant-Baptifm.  317 

general  Nature  of  all.  (2  J  The  Covenant  of  Grace  can- 
not be  fealed  by  the  Blood  of  Chritl  only,  in  the  Senfe  of 
our  Author,  who  fuppofes  the  Sealing  of  the  Covenant 
to  be  the  afTuring  the  Perfon  of  his  fpecial  Intereft  in  it. 
But  does  Chrift's  lliedding  of  his  Blood  for  theConfirma- 
tion  of  the  Covenant,  afTure  any  particular  Perfon  of  his 
Intereft  in  the  foecial  Privileges  of  it  ?  (3.)  The  SeaHng 
of  the  Covenant,  in  this  Senfe,  is  the  Work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit ;  which  he  calls  the  Seal^  or  Sealer  of  the  Saints. 
Whence  it  follows.  That  the  Blood  of  Chrift  is  not  the 
only  Seal  of  the  Covenant  y  and  ^o  we  fee,  there  may  be 
two  Seals  confiftent  with  each  other,  &  why  not  a  third  ^ 
And  then  what  is  the  Force  of  the  Reafon,  theBlood  of 
Chrift  is  a  Seal,  therefore  Baptifm  and  the  Lord'sSupper 
are  not  Seals  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace  ?  W^herefore  (4.) 
His  Confufion  and  Weaknefs  lies  in  not  diftinguifhing  as 
he  ought,  between  the  Blood  of  Chrift,  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  the  Sacraments,  in  their  feveral  Relations  to  theCo- 
venant  of  Grace.  The  Blood  of  Chrift  may  in  a  large 
Senfe  be  called  a  Seal  of  the  Covenant,  with  Refped  to 
its  internal  Frame  and  Conftitution,  which  is  ratified  and 
confirmed  thereby.  The  HolySpirit  is  an  inward  Seal,to 
confirm  the  fpiritual  Application  and  EfHcacy  of  theCo- 
venant,  to  the  Hearts  ot  particular  Believers.  The  Sa- 
craments are  outward  fenfible  Signs  and  Seals  of  this  Co- 
venant, annexed  to  the  vifible  Adminiftration  of  it,tothe 
feveralMembers  of  theChur-ch.  And  thefe  are  all  fo  con- 
fiftent with  each  other,that  there  is  no  arguing  from  one's 
being  a  Seal,  to  the  Exclufion  of  the  other  i  when  each 
of  them  may  be  faid  to  Seal  the  Covenant,  under  diffe- 
rent Relations  &  Views.  It  was  foretold  of  Chrift,  that 
he  iliould  ^<?;/^^';7/  the  Covenant  with  ma7t)\  Dan.  9.  27. 
(which  our  Author  refers  to  for  Proof,that  his  Blood  was 
the  Seal  of  it. )  But  this  he  did  by  his  Dodrine,  Mira- 
cles, Refurredion^  and  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit,  as  well 
as  by  his  Death.  It  is  true,  as  the  Covenant  is  called 
the  New-Teftament  of  Jefus  Chrift,  fo  the  Death  of  the 
Teftator  was  necefTary  to  the  Validity  of  ir,  as  theApoftle 

argues 


3^3         A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap. IV, 

argues  from  a  Man's  laft  Will  and  Teftament,  which  is 
not  in  Force  till  his  Death.  Heb.g.i6,iy.  So  the  Blood 
of  Chrift  may  in  a  large  and  general  Senfe  be  termed  the 
Seal  of  his  Teftament,  which  renders  it  an  everlailing 
Covenant,  of  perpetual  Force  and  Validity.  Heb.  13.  20. 
But  becauie  the  Blood  of  Chrili:  has  fo  feaied  or  confirm- 
ed the  New-Covenant,  as  to  render  it  a  valid  Conftituti- 
on  for  the  Salvation  of  Sinners,  to  argue  thence.  That 
the  Sacraments  of  Baptifm  and  the  Lord's  Supper  can- 
not be  vifible  Seals  of  the  fame  Covenant,  is  juft  as  if  one 
fhould  argue,  that  becaufe  a  Man's  laft  Will  and  Tefta- 
ment is  confirmed  by  his  Death,  therefore  there  is  no 
Need  that  it  Ihould  be  otherwife  confirmed  by  a  proper 
Signing  and  Sealing  of  it. 

The  Minifter  in  the  Dialogue  having  afT^rted,  that  it 
is  the  felf  fame  Covenant  that  is  feaied,  both  byCircum- 
cifion  and  Baptifm,  in  Proof  that  Baptifm  ought  now  to 
be  adminiftred  to  Infants  •,  illuftrates  it  to  hisParifhioner 
by  a  familiarSimilitude,of  the  famePatent  of  Lands  feal'd 
in  the  fuccefTive  Reigns  of  two  feveral  Kings,  with  two 
different  Seals,a  Red,  and  aWhite  One.  Dr.Giil  fays,  it 
is  "  a  fine  Piece  of  Wit."  I  confefs,  I  did  not  takeNo- 
tice  of  that  before,  fo  much  as  of  the  Reafon  and  Judg- 
ment fhewn  in  applying  the  Similitude  to  illuftrate  the 
Point  in  Difcourfe  ;  and  perhaps  on  the  other  Hand, 
Dr.  Gill  v/as  fo  dazzled  with  theFinenefs  of  the  Wit,that 
he  did  not  mind  that  the  Reafoning  in  it  was  too  folid 
and  weighty  to  be  blown  away  with  a  Puff.  I  am  fure 
(whatever  becomes  of  the  Wit,  yet  as  to  what  concerns 
the  Argument)  he  had  no  Reafon  for  his  Boaft,  that  ic 
*'  is  fpoiled  and  loft,"  but  that  frivolous  one  laft  men- 
tioned, the  Weaknefs  whereof  has  been  fufficiently  de- 
teded.  Nor  has  he  one  Word  in  Reply  to  the  Scripture- 
Arguments  produced  in  the  Dialogue^  that  Baptifm  is  now 
a  Seal  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace,as  Circumcifion  was  for- 
merly. 

Wherefore,   upon  the  whole,  fince  it  has  been  made 
to  appear,  that  the  Covenant  God  made  with  Abra- 
ham 


Chap,  IV.  ^/ Infant- Baptifm.  319 

Ibam  and  his  Seed,  was  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  and  that 
it  remains  ftill  inForce  in  the  fame  Extent,  withRefpedt 
I  to   Gofpel -Believers,  the   Chriftian  Seed  of  Abraham^ 
under  theNe\v-Teilament-Admini{lration,and  that  Cir- 
cumcifion  was  anciently  appointed  to  be  the  Token  and 
Seal  of  thisCovenant  ;  and  that  Baptifm,  under  theChri- 
ftian  Difpenfatioa,  fucceedsCircumcificnjas  the  initiating 
(Sign  and  Seal  of  the  fame  Covenant, which  was  formerly 
feai'd  by  Circumcifion  to  the  Infants  of  the  Faithful  ;  I 
freely  leave  it  to  any  judicious,unbias'd  Reader  to  judge, 
whether  the  Evidence  from  Scripture,  for  the  Right  of 
Chriilian  Infants  to  Baptifm,   and  that  from  the  primi- 
tive Inftitution  of  the  Covenant  with  Abraham^  which 
required  the  Token  and  Seal  of  it  to  be  adminifter'd  to 
Infants,  without  anyRepeal  of  it  ever  after,does  not  Hand 
good,  notwithftanding  all  Dr.  G///'s  Exceptions  :  And 
whether  he  has  been  able  to  make  out  any  one  of  hisPre- 
tenfions  to  the  contrary  :  And  whether  theSophilf  ry,Con- 
fufion  and  Error,  ("and  I  may  add  the  Blunders  andCon- 
tradidlionsj  which  his  m.iflaken  Principles  about  theCo- 
venant  have  led  him  into,in  his  Arguings  on  thisSubjed, 
have  not  been  fufKciently  detedled  and  expofed. 

I  fhall  clofe  this  Chapter  with  a  few  Remarks  on  our 
Author's  Endeavour  to  vindicate  himfelf,  and  his  Party, 
from  the  Charge  that  has  been  juftly  exhibited  againft 
them,  of  abridging  and  lefiening  the  Privileges  of  the 
Gofpel-Difpenfation,  with  Refpe(5l  to  InfantSjwhich  they 
formerly  enjoy'd,  by  cutting  them  off  from  their  Cove- 
nant-Right, and  depriving  them  of  the  New-Tefiamenu 
Seal.  This  our  Author  calls,  "  a  clamorous  Outcry." 
I  believe,  it  does  not  carry  a  Sound  that  is  grateful  to 
them.  For  it  does  not  appear  from  what  our  Author 
has  faid  already,nor  from  what  he  has  here  added, that  the 
Accufation  is  unreafonable  or  unjufl  :  but  his  Vindica- 
tion appears  lame  and  infufficient.  The  Minifterin  the 
Dialogue  has  reprefented  it  as  "  a  great  &  glorious  Pri- 
*'  vilege  granted  to  Children  under  the  legal  Difpenfa- 
*'  tion,  that  they  fhould  enjoy  the  Seal  of  theCovenant  :'* 

And 


320  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  IY. 

And  demands,  "  How,why,and  when  were  Children  cut 
*'  off  from  this  Privilege?'*    Dial.  P.19,20.  And  fhews, 
that  in  this  Cafe  the  Opinion  of  the  Adverfaries  is  en- 
cumbred  with  this  Abfurdity,  that ''  the  Gofpel  is  a  lefs 
"  glorioLisDifpenfation,  with  Refpecl  tolnfants,  than  the 
*'  tormer.   Dial.  P.  30  "  Our  i\uthor  has  taken  Notice 
of  thefe  Particulars,  and  pretends  to  reply  to  them. P.  62. 
(i)  He  fays,  "  The  Covenant  of  Grace  was  never  feal'd 
*'  to  Infants  byCircumcifion."  This  I  fhall  pafs  over,  as 
one  of  his  conlutedErrors.     (2.)  "  Nor  was  that  bloody 
*'  and  painful  Rite  accounted  a  rich  and  glorious  Privi- 
*'  lege,  far  from  it  &c.'*  And  does  he  imagine,  that  the 
Author  of  the  Dialogue  plac'd  the  glorious  Privilege  of 
Children  under  that  Difpenfation,in  that  bloody  Incifion 
made  in  the  Flefh  by  Circumcifion,  ^bftrading  from  its 
Sacramental  Relation  to  the  Covenant  ?    '(^.)  That  "It 
"  is  a  rich  Mercy  and  glorious  Privilege  of  the  Gofpel, 
''  that  the  Jews  and  their  Children  are  delivered  from  it, 
"  and  that  the  Gentiles  and  their  Children   are  not  ob- 
"  lig'd  to  it."     And  can  he  perfwade  himfelf,  that  the 
Pnsdobaptifts  are  not  as  fenfible  of  this  rich  Mercy  and 
glorious  Privilege,  as  himfelf?  (4.)  "As  for  theDemand 
''  how,  why,  and  when  Children  were  cut  off  from  it, 
**  it  is  eafily  anfwered,  that  this  was  done  by  the  Death 
"  of  Chrift,  and  at  the  Time  of  it  &c."      The  Reader 
will  eafily  perceive,  that  all  this  is  meer  Shuffling  -,  for 
does  he  believe,  that  the  P^dobaptifls  plead  for  theCon- 
tinuance  of  Circumcifion  and  other  typical  Rites  of  the 
Old-Teftament,  fince  the  Coming  and  Death  of  Chrift  ? 
To  what  Purpofe  then  is  this  confufed  Ramble  of  Talk? 
It  feems  to  have  no  other  Aim  orTendency,than  to  dar- 
ken and  hide  the  Truth, both  from  himfelf  and  his  Rea- 
der, or  to  fhift  tjie  mainQueftion  where  it  pinches.     We 
do  not  charge  the  Antipasdobaptifts  with  diminifliing,or 
annulling  the  Privilege  ot  Infants  which  they  had  under 
the  01d-Teftament,by  not  retaining  Circumcifion,or  not 
circumcifing  their  Children  •,  but  by  depriving  them  of 
thdr  Covenant- Privilege,  and  of  the  inftitucedSealof  the 

New- 


Chap.  IV.  ^/  Infanc-Baptifm.  321 

Nevv-Teftament,  which  anfwers  to  Circumcificn,  as  it 
v/as  a  Token  of  the  Covenant,  which  was  thereby  feal'd 
to  the  Infant-Seed  of  the  Church  under  the  Old-Tefta- 
ment.  Nor  do  we  Demand  of  them  how,  why,c)r  when, 
was  Circumcifion  abohfhed,&  the  Children  of  theChurch 
dehvered  from  that  burdenfom  painful  Rice  :  We  know- 
very  well,that  this  was  done  at  theDeath  of  Chrift,  which 
fulfilled  &  put  anEnd  to  all  the  bloodyRitesof  theLaw, 
which  pre- figured  a  Redeemer  to  come  Sc  fhed  hisBIood. 
But  we  demand  of  them,  how,  why,  and  when,  were  rhe 
Children  of  God's  People  cut  oft  from  their  Share  in  his 
Covenant,  and  from  the  Privilege  of  having  it  fealed  to 
them  which  they  once  enjoyed  ?  And  this  they  cannot 
Anfwer. 

Wherefore,  to  clear  die  Truth  from  the  Darknefs  and 
Miff  of  Error,  which  he  has  mvolv'd  it  in, we  mull  difbin- 
guilh  of  the  general  &  pariicuIm'N^tUYQ  oi:  Circumcifion, 
as  of  all  other  Sacraments  If  we  confider  it  in  hsparli" 
cular  Nature^  as  it  confifts  in  the  cutting  of  the  Elefh, 
caufing  fome  Eiiufion  of  Blood,  proper  to  that  typical 
Difpenfation,  *tis  g?  anted,  that  "  it  was  aYokc  of  Bon- 
"  dage,  and  an  unfuppoitable  One.  Acf.  15.  10.  And 
'tis  acknowledg'd  to  be  a  rich  Mercy  and  Privilege  to 
the  Chriftian  Church, to  be  delivered  from  it,and  to  have 
the  more  eafy  and  gentle  Rite  of  Baptifm  inftituced  in 
its  Room.  But  confidering  it  in  its  general  Nature,  as 
ail  inltituted  Token  and  Seal  of  the  Covenant,  which 
marks  out  a  diitinguifhed  People,intitled  to  pecuiiarPri- 
viieges  under  the  Difpenlations  of  divineProvidenceand 
Grace  •,  fo  it  was  a  very  rich  and  valuable  Privilege  of 
theChurch  of  the  Old- Tcdament,  and  as  fuch  it  was 
efteem'd  by  the  ApoHle  PW,when  he  puts  the(>Liefi:ion, 
What  Profit  is  there  of  Circumcifion^  to  the  Jews  ?  Rom, 
-3.1.  He  Anfwers,  f.  2.  Much  every  Way  •,  chiefly  bfcaufe 
that  unto  them  we^e  committed  the  Oracles  of  God,  Which 
divine  Oracles  compriz'd  thoie  excellent  Prerogatives 
which  he  mentions  as  pertaining  to  the  Jews  •,  Ch.  1 1.4. 
\'iz.  I'hs  Adopion^  and  the  Glory ^  and  the  Covenants^  and 

Y  tbs 


322  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  IV. 

the  giving  of  the  Law^  and  the  Service  of  Gcd^  and  the 
Promtfes.  And  being  confider'd  as  fuch  a  Pnvilege,the 
Chiidien  of  the  New-Teilanicnt  Church  were  not  cut 
off  from  it  by  the  Death  of  Chrift  ;  fince  he  immediately 
thereupon  infiituted  hisNew-Teframent-Seal  of  Baptifm, 
in  the  Room  ot  Circumcifion,  having  the  fame  Jpiritual 
Signiiication  with  that  antiquated  Rite,  and  anfwering 
to  the  fame  Purpofes,  and  therefore,  we  fay,  to  be 
adminiflred  to  the  fame  Subje^ls.  Wherefore  it  is 
meerly  trifling,  and  evafive,  to  fay,  That  Children  were 
cut  off  from  the  individual  Rite  of  Circumcifion,  when 
Chriil  aboiilh'd  that,  &  all  other  legalCeremonies  at  his 
Death  -,  feeing  Chrift  has  not  left  his  New-Teffament 
Church  deilitute  of  an  initiating  Rite,  that  fully  corref- 
ponds  with  that  of  Circumcifion,  in  its  facramiCntal  Ufe 
and  Signification  •,  inRefped:  whereof  it  was  neither  weak  j 
nor  unprofitable,  but  a  choice  and  excellent  Privilege.  | 
And  of  this  the  Children  of  Chriftians  are  no  lefs  capa- 
ble, than  the  Jews  Children  were  of  that  ancient  Sacra- 
mental Rite  :  Nor  can  it  be  pretended,  that  the  Infants 
of  Believers  are  by  the  Death  of  Chrift  cut  off  from 
this  Privilege,  but  are  rather  confirm'd  in  it.  See  Eph,^, 
25,  26.  If  Infants  are  any  Part  of  that  Body  of  which 
Chrift  is  the  Head  and  Saviour,  it  is  evident  from  the 
Words  of  the  Apoftle,  that  it  was  the  Defign  of  Chrift's 
Death  to  fanthfy  and  cleanfe  them  vcith  the  Wafljing  of 
Water.  I'is  added  by  our  Atuhor,  [ibid.)  That  "  as  for 
"  the  Gofpel-Difpenfation,  that  is  the  more  glorious  for 
**^  Infants  being  left  out  of  its  Church-State,that  is  to  fay, 
"  For  its  being  not  national  and  carnal  as  before,  but 
"  congregational  and  fpiritual,  for  its  confifting  not  of' 
"  Infants  wiihoutUnderil:anding,but  of  rational  &  fpiri- 
"  tual  Men,  of  Believers  in  Chrift,  and  Profeffois  oi  his 
"  Nime  i  and  thefenot  in  a  (ingle  or  fmall  Country,  as 
'^  Jiideii^vM  in  all  Paitsof  the  World,"&c.  Let  me  add 
here  a  lew  Remarks,  on  ihefe  bold  and  confidentExpref- 
.fions, 

(i.)  What  dees  it  fignify,   but  to  divert  the  Mind  of 

the 


Chap.  IV.  cf  Infant -Baptifm.  323 

the  Reader  from  the  main  Thing  that  ought  to  be  in 
View,  to  tell  him  of  the  Advantages  and  Excellencies 
of  the  Gofpel  Difpenfation  in  other  Refpeds,  while  in 
the  parricularCafe  oF Infants, which  is  the  principalThing 
underConfidera:ion,noAdvantagesatallareallow'd?  And 
notonlyfo,but  they  areaccountedas  fccluded  bytheGofpei 
from  the  Advantages  they  enjoyed  under  the  formerDif- 
penfation,  in  being  admitted  into  the  Jewifh  Church  by 
Circumcifion  ;  and  in  this  Refped,  at  ieaft,  the  Gofpel  is 
made  a  lefs  glorious  Difpenfation  :  v^hich  is  the  miin 
Charge  our  Adverfaries  are  concerned  to  acquit  them- 
felves  from.  That  the  Gofpel  is  a  more  fpiritual  Difpen- 
fation of  greater  Clearnefs,  Efficacy  and  Extent,  both  to 
Jews  and  Genriles,  is  confefs'd  by  the  P^dobaptifls,  and 
improved  to  aggravate  theAbfurdity  of  their  Adverfaries 
Opinion,  which  curtails  and  diminifhes  the  Privileges  of 
Infants  under  theGofpel;  when  it  is  granted,  that  the  E- 
vangelical  Difpenfation  is  on  all  other  Accounts  more 
glorious,  particularly  in  Regard  to  its  Extent  and  Com- 
prehenfivenefs. 

(2.)  How  unreafonably  is  it  affirmed, "hat  theGofpel- 
Difpenfation  is  the  more  glorious  for  Infiints  being  left 
out  of  its  Church-Srate  ?  Is  it  then  a  Blemifli  or  Im- 
perfe6lion  of  any  Church-State,that  Infants  are  admitted 
into  it  ?  Was  it  no  Part  of  the  Glory  of  God's  Grace 
and  Condefcenfion  to  JjraeU  that  he  was  pleafcd  to  take 
their  Infant- Children  in:o  Covenant  with  himfelf, to  pro- 
mi  fe  to  be  the  God  of  their  Seed,  and  to  appoint  the 
Mark  of  his  Covenant  to  be  fet  upon  them  ?  Or  is  there 
one  Syllable  in  Scripture, that  intimates  that  former  Dif- 
penfation to  be,  for  this  Reafon,  the  lefs  glorious  ?  Our 
Author  el fewhere  grants,  th.at  Infants  dying  in  Infancy, 
are  capable  of  Salvation  by  Chrifl:,and  are  introduc'd  by 
him  into  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  :  P.  70.  But  may  he 
not  with  equal  Modefty  &  Juftice  affirm, that  the  King- 
dom of  Heaven  will  be  the  more  glorious  for  having  In- 
fants excluded  thence  ?  For  though  the  Capacities  of  In- 
fants are  fuppos'd  to  be  enlarg'd  and  advanc'd,  in  their 

y  2  '  A.dmifikMi 


324         ADefsnce  of  the  Divine  R'ight         Chap.  IV. 

Admifiion  into  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven, yet  tbeDifpen- 
fation  of  the  Kingdom  of  Grace  is  Chrift's  preparative 
Inttitution  for  all  that  Hiall  in  the  revealed  Method  of 
God's  Grace  be  admitted  into  the  Kingdom  of  Glory. 
And  a  Man  that  allows  Infants  to  be  Heirs  of  the  King- 
dom of  Heaven,  cannot  without  a  maniteH;  Inconfiftency 
deny  them  to  be  Swbje6ts  of  the  Kingdom  of  Grace,  or 
Members  of  the  Chriftian  Church.  Why  then  fiiould  the 
Reception  of  Infants  into  theGofpel-Church  be  any  more 
a  leffeningof  its  Glory,  than  their  Admiffion  to  Fleaven, 
a  diminifhing  of  theGlory  of  the  heavenly  State  ?  But, 

(3.)  Lee  us  fee  wherein  he  places  the  greater  Glory  of 
the  Gofpel  Church,  (i.^  In  its  being  (he  fays)  "  not 
^'  National5butCongregational."  But  how  does  it  appear 
that  theGofpel  Church  is  the  more  glorious  for  its  being 
Congregational  and  not  National  ?  The  Covenant  of 
Peculiarity  (^as  it  is  called^  and  the  Laws  &:  Ordinances 
whereby  the  Jews  were  dift inguifhed  and  feparated  from 
otherNationSjdid  not  fo  properly  coiUiicute  them  aChurcb 
as  make  them  the  onl-^  Cburch  God  had  in  the  World. 
And  the  greaterExceiiency  of  tl^eGofpel-Church  confifts 
not  fo  much  in  its  being  Congregational  (for  may  not  a 
whole  Nation  confiit  of  many  Chrift ian  Congregations, 
and  in  thatRefpedl  become  a  national  Church.^)  as  in  its 
being  Catholick,  or  diffus'd  among  all  Nations.  So  that 
under  the  Gofpel  a  whole  Nation,  yea  and  many  Nations 
embracing  the  Chriflian  Faith  may  become  the  Church 
orChurches  otChri{f,comprchendingParents  &  Children. 
[^)  \n  its  being  "  not  carnal  but  fpiritual."  Anf.  That 
the  Ordinances  of  the  Oid-Teftament-Church  are  called 
carnal^  confilling  or  a  Multiplicity  of  corporal  Rites,  is 
well  eno'  known  :  but  that  ever  thatChurch  was  fo  called, 
I  nevek*  knew  before.  Were  the  holy  Patriarchs  &  Pro- 
phets, and  all  the  pious  liraelites  the  Members  of  that 
Liiurch  carnal  &  not  fpiritual  }  Or  if  tfeere  were  Abun- 
darice  of  carnal  People  in  the  vifibleChurch  of  the  Jews, 
is  not  the  fame  too  plainly  verified  of  the  Chriftian  vili- 
bic  Church  I  Or  if  he  means  this  DLftinciionj  of  the  fe- 

veral 


Chap.  IV.  of  Infiint-Baptifm.  325 

veral  Difpenfations,  that  theEvangelicai  is  more  fpiritual 
in  its  Ordinances  and  Way  of  Vv^orlliip  than  the  legal, 
this  has  been  allowed  before,  and  'tis  nothing  to  his  Pur- 
pofe.  (3.)  The  Gofpei  Church  is  more  glorious  (he  fays) 
"  For  its  confiding  not  of  Infants  without  UnderPcand- 
"  ing,  but  of  rational  &  fpiritual  Men,  of  Believers  in 
*'  Chrift,  &c."  This  is  the  only  Thing  to  his  Purpofe, 
if  he  could  make  it  good,  that  rational  and  fpiritual  Men 
only  (exclufive  of  Infants)  are  theMembers  of  theGofpel- 
Church  ;  and  that  on  thisAccount  there  is  a  greaterEx- 
cellency  <k  Glory  in  it.  I  confefs,  if  Men  fet  their  Fancies 
to  work,  they  may  fhape  out  a  glorious  Church,  coniill- 
ing  only  of  rational  and  fpiritual  Men  •,  and  if  fuch  a 
Church  be  no  where  to  be  found,  but  fubfifts  only  in 
Imagination,  yet  the  Idea  is  pleafing.  Sol  perceive,Dr# 
Gill  is  for  having  a  Church  fomething  like,  not  confiiting 
of  poor  filly  Babes,  or  Children  without  Underflanding, 
or  not  receiving  fuch  into  itsBofom  -,  but  a  Church  made 
up  only  of  unuerftanding  rationalMen  :  J\nd  it  had  been 
more  excellent  flill  in  that  Reg:^rd,  ir  he  had  made  it  to 
confiO-only  of  aCollege  of  Doctors,&  learnedMcn,  or  of 
the  politer  Fart  of  Mankind,  exclufive  of  the  ignorant, 
raw,  illiterate  Vulgar.  But  our  v/ife  ti-  merciful  Saviour 
knew  better  what  Choice  to  make  of  the  Materials,  of 
which  he  defign'd  to  compofe  his  Gofpel-Church,  than 
any  of  our  Antipa^dobaptiils  could  'dire^  him  ;  and  hi^ 
Grace  has  often  prefer'd  Babes  in  Underilanding  and  in 
Age  too  before  the  wife  and  prudent  —  I'he  great  and 
compafTionate  Shepnerd  owns  the  Lambs  of  his  Flock  as 
belonging  to  his  Charge,  no  \t^%  than  the  Skesp^  Job.  21. 
15,16.  and  is  tenderly  affected  towards  them.  And  on 
feveral  Occalions  recorded  in  the  Gofpei,  v/e  find  him 
fhewing  his  Condefcenfion  and  Favour  to  Infants  &  little 
Children,  by  taking  fjch  into  his  Arms  &  bleHing  them, 
and  has  very  plainly  lignified  his  Will  that  they  fhouid 
be  acknowledg'd&  received  as  theMembers  of  hisChurch 
under  the  Goipel-Difpenfation,  fo  far  as  their  infantile 
State  and  Ca^^acity  will  admit,  when  he  declared  that  tf 

Y  3  fuch 


326  A  Defence  of  the  Bivin  Right  Chap.  IV. 

fuch  is  thcKingdom  of  God.  Of  which  more  fully  hereafter. 
But  how  can  aril  thu  confift  with  hisexcludingthem  from 
his  Gofpel-Church  .?  Does  it  not  rather  fpeak  the  dired 
contrary  ?  There  is  much  of  the  Glory  of  God's  Grace 
and  Compaflion  towards  the  apoftate  Race  of  Men  in 
receiving  lintle  Children  wi.h  their  confederate  Parents 
into  his  Church  and  Covenant.  Though  Men  are  apt 
to  defpife  them  as  having  but  little  Worth  or  Excellen- 
cy in  them,  yet  God  who  is  mighty  and  defpifeth  not  an\\ 
has  undeniably  extended  this  Favour  to  them  in  his  for- 
mer Tranfadions  with  his  People  ;  and  their  Meannefs 
and  Wtaknefs  does  but  ferve  the  more  to  illuftrare  and 
magnify  his  fovereign  rich  Grace  in  its  Difpenfation  to 
them  i  and  Chrifl.the  Minifterof  his  Father's  Grace,has 
receiv'd  themjand  willed  us  to  receive  them  in  hisName, 
as  has  been  obferv'd.  Has  our  Author  never  read.,  Out 
of  tbeMoutb  of  Babes  &  Sucklings  thou  haft  perfe5tedPraife? 
Match.  21.  16.  But  the  Glory  of  Gofpel-Grace  in  this 
Inilance  had  been  obfcured  and  loft,  if  Children  who  for- 
merly fliared  in  the  Covenant  &  Seal,  were  now  cm  off 
from  both  :  So  far  is  it  from  being  true,  that  the  Gofpel 
is  a  more  glorious  Difpenfation  for  leaving  out  Infants, 

Our  Author  goes  on,  P.  63^  *'  As  for  Infants,  their 
**  Cafe  is  as  good,  and  theirPnvileges  as  many,&  better 
^'  than  under  the  legal  Difpenfation."  But  how  can  this 
poffibiy  bejif  they  be  fhut  out,and  left  out  of  thcGofpel- 
Difpenfation  ol  the  Covenant  ?  God's  Covenant  &  Pro- 
mile  to  the  Seed  of  his  ancient  People  to  be  their  Gcdy 
left  Hope  of  their  eternal  Salvation  when  they  died  in 
Infancy  :  but  in  this  Cafe  their  Condition  is  deplorable 
under  the  Gofpel,  if  they  be  cut  off  from  the  Covenant- 
Ivlercies  of  God  •,  fince  there  remains  noG round  of  Hope 
in  divine  Revelation  of  their  well  being  in  a  futureState. 
Pie  proceeds  to  fay,v/itb  as  muchAffurance,as  if  he  were 
privy  to  rhe  fecret  Counfels  ot  Heaven, that  ''  Their  Sal- 
*'  vation  is  not  at  all  afFc6ted — through  Want  of  Bap- 
*^  tifm  to  fucceed  Circurncifion/'  I'hac  is,  their  bein,g 
bap'.iz^dj  or  not  baptized,  does  act  help  or  hinder  their 
'  '  Saivatioii* 


Chap.  IV.  cf  Infant-Baptifm.  ^27 

Salvation.  But  what  Revelation  has  Dr.  Gill  for  this  ? 
.Surely  none  in  theWord  ol  God, if  the  Infants  of  Believers 
be  cut  off  from  the  Covenant  &  Seal  under  the  Gofpel : 
and  therefore  there  is  noSafety  in  relying  on  his  confident 
Afiertion.  For,being  out  of  Covenant5they  muft  be  with- 
cut  Cbriif^  and  without  Hope^  by  the  Teftimony  of  the 
Apoftle.  Eph,  2.  12.  I  hope,  Dr.  Gill  does  not  expe(5t 
the  Salvation  of  Infants  otherwife  than  by  the  Grace  of 
God  through  the  Merit  of  Chrift's  Blood  •,  and  not  as  a 
natural  Right  belonging  to  them,  as  they  are  of  the  hu- 
manSpecies  :  therefore  he  muft  acknowledge,  that  it  be- 
longs to  God  as  the  free  fovereign  Difpenfer  of  his  own 
Grace,  to  appoint  theTerms  &  Means  of  itsDifpenfation. 
And  fince  Baptifm  is  Chrift's  Inftitution  and  Means  of 
Salvation,vvhich  Infants  are  capable  of  (as  has  beenprov'd) 
it  is  high  Prefumption  in  any  Man  to  perfuade  himfelf, 
or  others,  that  their  Well-being  is  not  at  all  affev5led  by 
the  Want  of  it,  efpecially  through  their  Parent's  Negle6t. 
This  is  to  abufe  Grace,  by  making  it  a  Pretence  for  the 
Neglect  of  the  Means  of  Grace.  It  is  as  if  aParent  fliould 
argue  at  this  Rate  againft  praying  for  his  Tick  and  dying 
ChildjThat  its  Salvation  is  not  at  ail  affeded  by  my  pray- 
ing, or  not  praying  for  it.  Whatever  God's  Mercies  may 
be  (v/hich  are  not  revealed)  towards  the  Soul  of  an  In- 
fant departing  this  Life,  without  Prayer,  or  baptifmai 
Dedication  to  God  ;  yet  fuch  an  irreligious  Parent,  for 
his  Part,  can  have  no  comfortable  well  grounded  Hope 
of  its  Salvation.  What  he  adds,  of  the  greater  Privilege 
of  Infants  in  "  having  a  Chriftian Education,  and  theAd- 
"  vantage  of  hearing  theGofpel,  as  they  grow  up,"  does, 
not  mend  the  Matter  -,  for  befides  that  if  Death  felze 
them  before  they  are  grown  up  to  aCapacity  for  Inftrix- 
tion,  their  State  is  as  bad  as  the  Children  of  the  uncove- 
nanted  Pagans  -,  Befides  this  I  fay,  when  grown  up  they 
are  no  more  under  a  Promife  of  the  f^ifpeniaticn  and  In- 
fluence of  the  Spirit,  (as  the  Children  of  the  Covenant 
arc,  Ifai.  59.  21.)  than  many  Heathens  who  may  have 
the  Opporiunity  and  Advantage  of  hearing  the  Gofpel 

y  4  preached. 


^2S         A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap,  V. 

preached.  From  the  whole  therefore  it  appears,  that 
notwithflanding  all  our  Author  has  faid  to  filence  the 
clahiorous  Gut-cry^  (as  he  terms  it)  there  remains  dill  as 
much  Reaibn  for  it  as  ever,  in  charging  our  Adverfaries 
(while  they  deny  and  renounce  the  Intereft  of  Believers 
Children  in  the  Covenant,  and  their  Title  to  the  New- 
Teftament-Seal)  with  contradling  and  diminifhing  the 
Privileges  of  the  Gofpel,  and  rendring  it  a  lefs  glorious 
DifpenTation,  with  Refpecl  to  Infants,  than  the  former. 
And  fo  I  fhall  proceed  to  his  next  Chapter. 


Chap.     V. 

The  feveral  Texts  in  the  New-Tejlament^ 
alledg'd  as  confirming  Evidences  of  the 
Divine  Right  of  l72fa7it-Baptifm^i^Vi{ki?i-' 
ted,  and  vindicated. 

^lllllaHE  main  Argument  for  the  divine  Right  of  In- 
^6^  T^l  fant-Baptiim  from  the  Covenant-Intereft  of  the 
^^IIIFs  Children  of  the  Faithful  under  the  Evangelical 
Difpenfaticn, having  been  largely  and  fully  clear- 
ed up,  confirmed,  &  vindicated,  in  the  preceedingChap- 
ter,  there  remain  divers  Texts  of  the  New-Teftament, 
which  are  pi'operly,  and  pertinently  brought  in  as  con- 
fir4r.ing  Evidences  of  this  divineRight  ;  andjas  fuch,  im- 
prov'd  in  the  Dialogue,  v/hich  are  objeded  againft  byDr. 
GilL  li  is  therefore  the  Burinefs  of  this  Chapter  to  vin- 
dicate itioli  Pafrag(rs  from  his  Exceptions  :  And  I  (hall 
maice  no  long  Bufincfs  of  it,  having  already  cited,  ex- 
plain'd,  &  apply'd  the  moli  of  them  for  theConfirmatioa 
of  the  main  Argument  infilled  on  in  the  loregoingChap- 
tcr.  Ail  therelore  that  I  here  propofe  to  do,  is  to  clear 
up  tbt  Force  of  our  Argument  for  the  Right  of  Intanc- 

Baptifm, 


Chap.  V.  vf  Infant-Baptifm.  329 

Baptifm,  from  thofe  feveral  Texts,  by  affigning  their  ge- 
nuine Meaning,  and  to  make  Reply  to  the  Objeftions 
which  Dr.  Gill  has  thrown  together  in  this  Chapter. 

I.  T\\t  firft  is  that  notedText  in  A6l.2.38,39.  Repent 
and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the  Nawe  ofJeJusChrift^ 
for  the  Remiffion  oj  hins^  and  ye  fhall  receive  the  Gift  cf  the 
Holy  Gkoft.  For  the  Promife  is  unto  you  and  to  your  Chil- 
dren^ and  to  all  that  are  afar  ojf^  even  as  many  as  theLord 
ourGod  fkall  call.  ThisPafTage  was  before  noted  to  con- 
tain an  impHcit,  if  not  exprefs,  Command  for  baptizing, 
the  Infant  Children  of  Chriftians.  We  may  obferve  in 
itjF/r/?,  TheCcmmand  orExhortation  propounded,;?^. 3 8, 
Repent  and  be  baptized  in  the  Name  of  Jefus  Chrifl,  &:c. 
Secondly^  The  Argument  and  Obligation  to  aCompliance 
with  this  Command,  contain'd  in  >''.  39.  For  the  Promife 
is  unto  you  end  to  your  Children  &c.  And  hence  the  Ar- 
gument is  very  clear  and  flrong,  that  thofe  to  whom  the 
Keafon  of  the  Duty  orMotive  to  it  extends,are  warranted 
and  obliged  to  comply  with  the  Duty  commanded  and 
exhorted  to  :  But  the  Reafon  of  theDuty  extends  to  Pa- 
rents and  theirChildren.  The  Promife  is  unto  yen  &  to  your 
Children.  AndbothParents  ^Children  beingincluded  in 
theArgument&Obhgation, itundeniably  follows,  theymufl 
both  be  underllood  as  included  in  the  Commandjor  in  the 
Duty  recommended  &  enjoin' d^ Repent  &  be  baptized  -,  fo 
tar  as  they  are  refpecflively  capable  of  it.  It  is  not  only 
a0erted,rhat  God's  Promije  or  Covenant  belongs  to  them 
and  theirChildren  ;  which  alone  had  been  fufficient  to  give 
them  and  their  Children  (upon  theParents  embracingthe 
Faith  of  Chriif)  a  Right  and  Title  to  Baptifm,the  New- 
IVftament  Token  and  Seal  of  the  Promife;  but  this  is  al- 
iedg'd  &  improv'd  as  a  Reafon  &:Motive  to  engage  them 
and  their  Children  to  come  under  the  ChritlianDifpenfa- 
tion,  by  being  baptized  in  the  Name  o'i  Jefus  Chriiljthac 
they  might  partake  of  the  Bleifings  of  the  Promife,  Re- 
million  of  Sins,  and  the  Giit  of  the  Holy  Ghofl:.  Wtv^. 
is  a  Command  for  Baptifm  annexed  to  the  Covenant  un- 
der the  Gofpel-Difpcnfation.  Thus  the  Apofile  was  di- 
rected 


330         A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.V. 

redled  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  the  very  Beginning  of  the 
New-Tcftament-Adminiftration,  to  determine  a  Point, 
which  is  yet  fo  much  controverted  (for  want  of  an  un- 
prejudiced Attention  to  the  Senfe  &Scopc  of  his  Words  j 
viz.  Whether  the  Covenant  and  Seal  of  it  fliould  be  as 
extenfive  under  the  New-Teftament,  as  they  were  under 
the  Old,  that  is,  to  Parents  and  their  Children.  And  as 
I  have  fhewed,  that  the  Promife  here  referred  to 
can  be  underftood  of  no  other  than  that  eminent 
Promife  to  Abraham  and  his  Seed.  So  we  mayob- 
ferve  much  of  a  Parallel  between  God's  firft  Inftitution 
of  his  Covenant  and  Token  of  it  with  Atraham.^ind  thefe 
Vv^ords  of  the  Apoftle  in  the  firft  Adminiftration  of  the 
New-Teftament-Token  of  the  Covenant  after  ourLord's 
Death  and  Refurredion.  For  (i.)  As  then,  God's  Pro- 
mife to  Abraham  was, to  be  a  God  to  him  and  to  hisSeed  ; 
fonow,  the  Promife.,  faith  the  Apoftle,  is  unto  you  and  to 
your  Children,  (2.)  As  then,  God  appointed  the  Token 
of  his  Covenant  to  be  of  equal  Extent  with  his  Promife 
to  Abraham  and  his  Seed  ^  and  for  this  Reafon,  becaufe 
his  Covenant  belong'd  to  them,  therefore  the  Token  or 
Sign  of  it  mufl  be  {ti  upon  them  inCircumcifion.Gu^/1.17. 
9,10.  60  here,  for  the  fam.e  Reafon,  the  Apoille  urges 
upon  his  Hearers  the  Reception  of  Baptifm,rheChriftian 
Circumcifion,  becaufe  the  Promife  belong'd  to  them  and 
their  Children,  which  therefore  gave  their  Children  as 
good  a  Right  to  Baptifm,  the  initiating  Token  of  the 
Chrillian  Covenant,  as  the  fame  Promife  gave  the  Old- 
Teftament-Seed  of  Abraham  to  Circumcifion,  theToken 
of  the  Abrahamitical.  f  3.)  As  then,  God  ordained  the 
Token  of  his  Covenant  to  be  applied  to  the  Sons  of  the 
Stranger,that  were  not  of/y/'r^/.YZ/w'sSeed,whoIhouldcome 
into  his  Family  &Covenant,  GV«.  17.12,13.  So  here,  the 
Apofllenotonlyafcertains  thisPrivilege  to  thejews&their 
Children  (the  natural  Seed  of  Abraham)  under  the  Chri- 
flian  Difpenfation,  but  alfo  extends  the  Promife,with  all 
the  Rights,Privileges,  andBleilings  of  it,  to  them  that  are 
^faroff^  when  called  by  the  Goipt;i  into  a  yiiiblc  Church- 
State, 


Chap.  V.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  ^31 

:5tate,  that  is,  to  the  Gentiles  who  by  believing  in  Chrifl: 
become  the  adopted  Seed  of  Abraham^  and  Fellow- Heirs 
with  the  believing  Jews  oj  ibe  fame  Promife.  (See  Eph.  2. 
I9.&3,6J  From  all  which  it  appears  how  ftrongly  the 
Argument  concludes  from  thelcVVords  of  theApoflle,for 
the  Right  of  Infant-Children  of  Believers  to   Baptifm. 
And  if  this  Text  had  been  the  demier  Refort  of  the  Au- 
thor of  theD/tf%^(?,as  Dr.  Gill  terms  it, it  appears  he  had 
inade  a  wifeChoiceof  hisDefence,and  that  ffor  anyThing 
I  have  yet  {^.^w)  impregnable  againtlall  Aflaults.     A.nd 
if  it  be  the  Sheet  Anchor  of  the  Caufe  of  the  Pnedobaptifts, 
fas  he  calls  it  in  Contempt^  it  (fill  abides  fure,    and  un- 
movable,  (as  I  truft,  the  impartial  Reader  will  perceive) 
notwithftanding  the  feeble  Attempts  of  Dr.  Gill  and  his 
Party  to  unfix  it.     In  the  mean  Time,he  is  greatly  mifta- 
\  ken,  if  he  thinks  it  the  main  or  onlySupport  of  the  Caufe 
iof  thePaedobaptifts.     I  (hall  make  fome  brief  Remarks 
on  his  Objedlions,  which  are  indeed  too  trivial  to  require 
an  elaborate  Confutation. 

Firfi^  He  pretends,  there  is  aContradiflion  the  Pasdc- 
baptift  Writers  are  chargable  with, (particularly  theWriter 
of  the  Dialogue)  while,  it  fcems,  he  finds  them  afferting, 
*'  ThatPerions  are  by  Baptifm  brought  into  theCovenant 
"  of  Grace-,"  and  at  other  Times,  '^  That  an  Intereft 
"  in  the  Covenant  gives  a  Right  to  Baptifm."  A  Cove- 
nant-Interefl  is  indeed  fuppos'd,  as  previous  to  Baptifm. 
But  where  is  the  Contradidion  between  thefe  two  A(!er- 
tions  ?  Has  our  Author  never  known  or  heard  of  a  Con- 
tra«5l,  or  Promife  in  Word,  or  Writing,  giving  a  Perfon 
a  Right  to  Lands  or  Goods,  previous  toSigning,  Sealing 
and  Delivery  of  the  Inftrument  of  Convey..nce,  which 
g'<ves  a6uai  PoiTeiTion  }  Or  is  it  fo  unufual  aThing,thac 
he  fhould  need  to  be  told,  that  a  Perfon  by  Eleftion  may 
have  a  Right  to  a  certain  Ofiice,  and  an  Incereft  in  the 
Rights  and  Privileges  belonging  toir,before  he  is  actually 
inftail'd,  or  by  fome  Ceremony  folemniy  inverted  in  it  ? 
God's  Covenant  or  Promife  to  the  believing  Parent  to 
\^  the  God  of  his  Seed,  gives  his  Child  an  Intereft  in  his 

Coven;inr, 


33^        •    A  Difence  of  the  Dhine  Right  Chap.  V. 

Covenant,  and  this  gives  him  a  Title  and  Claim  to  Bap- 
tifm  as  the  Seal  of  it,  which  is  his  folemn  Inveftiture  in 
his  Covenant  Right,  fo  that  here  is  no  Appearance  of  a 
Contradi6lion. 

Secondly^  He  fays,  P.  64.  "  ThePromife  here  obferv'd, 
"  be  it  what  it  will,  is  not  takenNotice  of,  as  what  gives 
*'  a  Claim  and  Right  to  Baptifm,  but  as  an  encouraging 
•*  Motive  to  Perfons  pricked  in  the  Heart  —  to  repent 
**  and  be  baptized,  and  as  giving  them  Hope  of  receiv- 
"  ing  the  Holy  Ghoft."  Anf,  Tiie  Promife,  as  it  has 
been  explain'd  to  intend  the  main  (landing  Promife  of 
God's  Covenant,  to  be  a  God  to  believing  Parents  and 
their  Seed,  may  be  well  underilood  both  as  a  Warrant  or 
Ground  of  Claim  to  Baptifm,  and  as  an  encouraging 
Motive  thereunto,  as  the  Means  of  obtaining  Remiffion 
of  Sins,  and  the  Gift  of  the  Holy  Ghofl,  which  are  the 
great  Blefiings  compriz'd  in  thePromife  loAbraham  ;  as 
I  have  in  the  former  Chapter  Ihewed.  Baptifm  here  may 
be  confider'd  both  as  a  Privilege,  (and  it  is  undoubtedly 
a  Privilege  to  h  ive  the  Covenant  feal'd  )  and  a  Duty  in- 
cumbent on  all  that  are  admitted  into  Covenant.  The 
Promife  to  believing  Parents  and  their  Children,  gives 
them  a  Right  or  Claim  to  Baptifm,  in  Behalf  of  their 
Children,  as  it  is  aPiivilege  -,  and  ask  is  a  Duty,  it  gives 
them  good  and  fufficient  Warrant  for  baptizing  them,or 
is  the  Reafon  why  they  ought  to  be  baptized.  Waat 
Reafon  then  had  our  Author  for  making  fuch  an  Oppo- 
fttion  between  an  encouraging  Motive,  and  aWarrantor 
Right  to  Baptifm  ;  as  il  ii^t  one  being  afTerted, the  other 
njuft  bq  excluded  ?  Since  there  is  noManner  of  Inconnil- 
ency  between  them  •,  but  the  Promife  here  may  be  aptly 
interpreted  to  imply  both  the  one  and  the  odier.  It  I 
find  in  the  Word  of  God  a  Motive  to  any  Pradice  1  am 
concerned  in,  I  may  rightly  conclude,  1  have  a  good 
W^arrant  for  it.  I  am  not  furc,  but  charitably  fuppofc, 
that  Dr.  Cill  needed  no  other  encouraging  Motive  to 
embrace  the  Periwafion  of  the  Antipriidobaptift.s,  than 
(  when  he  thought,  hoNvtver  crroneoufly,  he  had  found  ) 

fonie 


Chap.  V.  of  Infant-Baptlfm.  335 

fome  Argument  orMotive  in  theWord  of  God  to  induce 
him  to  it.     Every  divine  Motive  to  a  Duty,  either  is,  or 
neceflarily  fuppofes,  adivineWarrant  for  th<i  Obfervance 
of  it.     But  when  he  goes  on  to  obferve,    "  Repentance 
"■'  and  Baptifni  were  urged  in  order  to  theEnjoyment  of 
"  the  Promife,  and  confequently  can    be  underftood  of 
"  no  other  than  adult  Perfons:"  I  deny  hisConfequence, 
(i.)  Becaufe  Infants  are  as  capable  of  Baptifm,  and  of 
the  Obligations  &  Benefits  of  it,    as  the  Adult,  though 
not  of  the  Exercife  of  Repentance.  And  though  thisRe- 
pentance  be  requir'd,as  well  as  Baptifm,  in  the  Exhorta- 
tion, and  theAduk  only  are  capable  of  it,  which  our  Ad- 
verfaries  objed  as  a  Bar  ( they  think  )  to  the  Baptifm  of 
Infants,  becaufe  they  cannot  repent  •,  yet  it  is  to  be  ob- 
jfervM,  That  as  Repentance  is  coupled  with  Baptifm  ia 
j  the  Command  or  Exhortation,  fo  the  Adult  are  coupled 
with  Infants,  Parents  with  their  Children,  in  the  Argu- 
ment from  the  Promife  \  and  therefore   the  Duties  ex- 
horted to,   muil  be  accommodated    to  their   refpedive 
Capacities  •,    and  the.  Parents  having   by  Repentance 
and  Faith  in  Jefus,  qualified   themfelves  tor  AdmilTion 
into  the  Chriilian  Difpenfation,  their  Infants  being  com- 
prehended with  them  in  the  Argument,  had  for  that  Rea- 
fon  an  equal  Right  to,  and  were  capable  of   receiving 
i  Chriftian  Baptifm.  ( 2.  ^  Though  Infants  are  not  imme- 
jdiately  capable  of  Repentance,  m  the  explicit  Acts  of  ir, 
!  as  the  Adult  are,  yet  they  are  capable  of  being  laid  un- 
i  der  Obligations    to  Repentance   and  all  other  Duties  of 
I  the  evangelical  Covenant  (as  they  grow  up  to  a  Capacity 
I  tor  fuch  Duties/  by  being  baptiz'd  m  their  Infancy. 

mniiy,HQ  fays,  P.  65. ''TheChildren  here  fpoken  of  do 
"  not  def]gnlnfants,but  thePofterity  of  thejews,and  fuch 
"  who  might  be caIledChildren,th6grown  up. --"But  what 
Reaion  or  Warrant  has  DrtG///for  excludinglnfancsfroin 
being  the  Poiierity  of  the  Jews  ?  Why  might  not  their 
Infants  be  called  Children  ?  Does  not  this  general  Term 
comprehend  Inlants,  as  well  as  Children  of  greater  Ma- 
turity P     Is  there  a  Syllable  in  theText,  that  retrains  the 

1  erm 


334  A  Defence  cf  the  Divine  Right  Chap.  V. 

Term  to  grownChildren  ?  But  it  mud  by  no  Means  in- 
tend Infants,  bccaufe  that  Senle  ot  the  1  erm  makes  a- 
gainft  his  Hypothefis ;  in  Maintenance  whereof,it  feems, 
thejews  Infants  mufl  be  denied  to  be  theirChildixn  !  He 
tells  us  indeed  that  "  DrJiammond  and  Ibme  others,havc 
*'  given  up  theArgument  hence  forPiEdobaptifm,"  But 
tho'  Dr.  Hammond  (who  was  a  llrong  AlTerter  of  Pasdo- 
baptifm^  laid  lefs  Strefs  on  thisText,  than  on  fome  others 
fparticularly  i  Cor.  7.  14.)  which  he  was  more  fond  of, 
as  being  more  agreable  to  the  peculiar  Notions  of  that 
learned  Man  ;  yet  it  is  held  by  the  generality  of  Divines 
and  Commentators  as  a  good  Proot  of  Infant  Baptifm. 
But  if  we  mull:  be  held  inSufpenfe  concerning  the  Mean- 
ing of  any  Faliage  oi  Scripture,  'till  all  learned  Criticks 
are  agreed  about  it,  we  muft  defpair  of  finding  out  the 
Senfe  but  of  few  Texts  in  the  Bible.  The  Argument 
from  the  Words  under  Confideration  is  plain  and  obvious 
to  Men  of  commonCapacity, without  theHclp  of  critical 
Learning.  He  adds,  ^'  SomeMen,  when  ever  they  meet 
*'  with  the  Word  Children.,  it  imniediately  runs  in  their 
^^  Headsjthat  Infants  mud  be  meant."  Thisisfpoken  ac 
Random  :  No  Man  (he  knows)  can  have  it  runniitg  in 
his  Heady  whenever  the  Word  Children  is  ufed,  that  In- 
fants mufl  be  meant,  becaufe  the  Context  often  plainly 
rcftrains  it  to  grown  Children.  But  I  fear  in  good  Ear- 
ned, thefe  Men  muft  have  a  wrong  Turn  given  to  their 
Heads  by  their  prejudicate  Opinions,  who  will  by  no 
Means  allow  Intants  to  be  meant,  whenever  they  meet 
w\A\  the  Term,  Children,  if  it  contradids  their  beloved 
Scheme,  but  radier  anyThing  elfe  that  a*  working  Fancy 
influenc'd  by  Bigotry  can  invent.  Children  inExperience 
and  Knowledge, Children  grown  up  to  be  Men, whatever 
Violence  be  otfer*d  to  the  Text  by  fuch  a  Senfe.  The 
Meaning  of  the  Word  Childrcyi,in  this  Pafrage,is  not  left 
dubious, but  it  is  plainly  determined  by  the  condantSenfe 
and  Tenor  of  God's  Covenant  and  Promife,  which  had 
ever  been  to  that  Moment  extended  to  Parents  &  their 
Infant- Children  ;  as  has    been   prov'd  beyond  Contra- 

didion ; 


Chap.  V.  of  Infant- Baptifm.  3^5 

didion  :    So  that  under  this  geiieralTerm  Children  thtxT 
Infants  muit  at  lead  be  included.     ButDr.G?//  and  thofe 
of  his  Perfuafion,  by  their  Interpretation  of  this  Text, 
make  the  infpired  Apoille  to  fpcak  Nonfenfe,  while  they 
give  the  Senle  thus,  'J'he  Promife  is  to  you  ^  to  your  Chil^ 
dren,  but  not  to   your  Children,  z%  ycur  Children^  or  as 
they  have  any  natural  Relation  to  you  -,  but  when  they 
fliall  be    grown  up  and  called  by  the  Gofpel,   then  the 
Promife  is  to  them  ;  which  is  no  more  than  might  be  faid 
!of  the  Children  of  the  ^Ethiopian.     One  would  think, 
ithat  no  Man  who  is  not  blinded  by  Prejudice,  but  muft 
'fee,that  theApoftle  fpeaks  of  a  prefentPrivilege  the  Jews 
Children  then  had  above  the  uncovenanted  Gentiles,  and 
|not  of  what  they  fhould  have  hereafter,  when  grown  up  ; 
;for  fo  the  Promife  might  never  belong  to  them,  in  the 
jSenfe  of  our  Adverfaries,  if  they  continued  to  rejed  the 
Call  of  the  Gofpel,  as  the  Body  of  the  JewifhNation  did  ; 
land  this  Interpretation  intirely  dellroys  the  Diftindlion 
iwhich  the  Apoftle  evidently  makes  between  the  Jews 
thiidren,  and   them  that  were  afar  off^  i.  e.  the  Gentile 
Nations  to  whom  thePromife  fliou'd  belong,  when  call'd 
into  aGofpei-Church-State,and  if  no  more  were  meant  of 
the  Children  of  the  Jews,  what  need  of  the  Difl:in6lion 
3ctween  them  and  the  Gentiles  as  yet  uncalled  P  The 
5ld  Evafion  of  the  Anabaptirr?,mentioned  and  refuted  by 
^ahin^  is  not  more  abfurd,  that  the  Place  is  to  be  inter- 
>reted  of  their  fpiritualChildren.*'  The  Obfervation  now 
nade  may  fuffice  to  obviate  his  next  Exception. 
Fourthly^  He  fuggefts  C/^/W.)  "  That  the  Promife  is 
reffrain'd  to  as  jnany  as  the  Lord  our  God  fhall  Call  \ 
whether  they  be  Jews  or  Gentiles. —  And   therefore 
(  fays  he  ]  can  furnifh  out  no  Argument  for  Infant- 
Baprifm,  &:c."  Anf.  Common  Senfe,and  theRules  of 
arrammar  dictate    that  limitting  Claufe,  as  many  as  the 
Lord  our  God  floall  Call^  to  be  underftood   in  Reference 
mly  to  that  Univerfal,  all  that  are  afar  cff\  \.  e.  all  the 
entile  Nations,  which   alone  was  that  in  the  Apoille's 

Words, 

*  Qahin  in  loc. 


356  A  Defence  of  the  Bi-vhje  Right        Chap.  V. 

Words,  which  requir'd  a  Reflriftion.  The  Gentiles  are 
in  Scripture-Language  iaid  to  be  afar  off^  not  fo  much 
in  Rtgard  of  local  Diitance,  as  of  their  State  and  Condi- 
tion^ their  Diftance  from  God,  being  out  of  Covenant, 
and  in  Way  of  Contradiftindtion  from  the  Jews,  who 
were  called^  People  near  to  God^  Pf.  148.  14.  And  God 
is  faid  to  be  nigh  unto  them  (  Deut.  4.  y.  )  in  Regard^ of 
the  Covenant-Relation  between  them  and  him.  But  the 
Gentiles,  by  believing  in  Chrill  &  coming  into  his  New- 
Covenant,  were  made  as  nigh  to  God  as  the  Jews,  thro' 
the  reconciling  Blood  of  Chrift:.  Eph.  2.  13.  But  nczv  in 
Chrift  Jefus^  yeivho  were  fometimes  afar  ojf\are  made  nigh 
hy  the  Blood  of  Chrifi.  The  meaning  of  thePhrafe  being 
thus  fettled  to  intend  the  uncircumcifed,  uncovcnanted 
Gentiles,  the  Senfe  of  the  Apoftle  is  plain  and  obvious, 
viz.  ne  Promife  is  unto  you] t^s^  the  natural  Seed  of  A- 
braham,.  and  to  your  Children-,  and  to  as  7nany  of  the  Gen- 
tile Nations,  as  the  Lord  our  God  (ball  call  intoFellowfhip 
with  you  in  a  Gofpel-Church-Scate.  And  admitting, that 
an  Interefl  in  the  Covenant  gives  a  Right  and  Claim  to 
the  initiating  Token  and  Seal  (which  is  ilrongly  intimat- 
ed in  thefeWords  of  the  Apoftle,  his  whole  Reaf,  ning  in 
this  Place  is  grounded  on  the  Suppofition  of  it  •,  and  it 
has  been  abundantly  proved  already,c.nd  cannot  with  any 
fair  Pretence  of  Reafon  be  denied)  the  Promife  here  fur- 
niihes  out  a  tuli  and  convidive Argument  for  Infant-Bap- 
tifm.  Fcr  the  Covenant  and  Promife  had  all  along  run 
in  this  Tenor,  to  the  Jews  and  their  Children.  Where- 
fore fince  theJewifliClnldren  ever  had, till  then,anlnterell 
in  the  Covenant  of  their  Parents,  to  lay,  that  their  Chil- 
dren were  cut  off  from  this  Intereft,  by  their  Parents  be- 
lieving in  Chrilf,and  wholly  excluded  trom  theCovenanc 
tinder  theChriftianDifpenfation,  upon  theirParents  com- 
ing over  into  it,  as  our  Adverfanes  pretend,  is  to  make 
the  Apoftle  in  thefe  Words  to  delude  his  Plearers,  while 
he  propoundsMarter  of  Privilege  to  induce  them  to  come 
over  into  this  Difpeniation  of  Chrifl:,and  fucha  Privilege 
as  ihey  had,  ior  the  Subftance,  ever  enjoy'd,  which  their 

Compliance 


Chap.  V.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  337 

Compliance  with  his  Counfel  and  Perfuafion  would  de- 
prive them  of  intirely  with  Refpedt  to  their  Children  : 
And  what  would  this  have  been  lei's  than  a  grofs  Cheat 
and  Impofture  ? — But  if  this  mud  nor  be  faidjbut  that  the 
Apollle  ferioufly  intended  that  theirChildren  fhould  Rill 
continue  polTefs'd  of  their  ancient  Right  and  Privilege 
upon  their  becoming  Chriftians,  and  be  taken  in  with 
them  under  the  New-Covenant-Difpenfation,  the  Con- 
fequence  is  inGonte(lable,that  the  Fromife,  as  belonging 
to  their  Children,  gives  them  a  good  Right  and  Claim 
jj  to  Chriftian  Baptifm,  the  initiatingToken  &  Seal  of  this 
New-Covenant.  Nor  is  it  a  Thing  to  be  contefted,  that 
theGentiles  being  cail'd  intoFellowlhip  withthe  believino- 
Jews, are  inflated  in  the  fameCovenant-Right  ^Privileges. 

Fifthly^  Our  Author  denies  the  Promife  here  to  be 
*'  the  Covenant  made  with  A  raham  •,*'  and  yet  owns,  ic 
may  be  "  the  Promife  of  the  MefTiah,"  or  "  thePromife 
of  the  RemiiTion  of  Sins,  —  or  of  the  Gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghofl."  P.  66.  As  if  the  Covenant  snd  Promife  of  God 
to  Abraham  did  not  comprize  all  ihersPiomifcs  I  I  have 
fully  obviated  this  ObjeCtion,by  proving  from  Scriptures- 
Evidence,  that  the  Promife  here  mtended  by  the  Apodle 
can  refer  to  none  €i{t  but  the  great  Promife  of  God  ta 
Abraham^  in  eftablifhing  his  Covenant  with  him  and  his 
Seedywhich  is  comprehenfivc  of  all  the  fcliowingPromifcs 
both  of  the  Old- Teftament,  and  the  New.  Yet  after  all 
if  the  Promife  of  the  Spirit,  in  Joel^  be  intended  in  this 
PalTage,  as  fome  contend,  ic  would  but  very  lictle  alfcd 
our  Argument  Irom  it  for  theRight  of  Infants  toBaptifm  ; 
fince  it  muft  be  interpreted  according  to  the  E^'tent  of 
the  original  Promife  to  Ahrabanty  which  was  fundamen- 
tal to  the  Jewifh  Church  State  ;  and  the  Promife  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  his  ordinary  fandifying  Influence  is  fuch 
as  the  Infants  of  the  Church  are  capable  of,  which  has 
been  prov'd,  and  cannot  be  denied  without  excluding 
them  from  a  Capacity  of  Salvation. 

II.  The  next  PalTage  excepted  againfl  by  our  Author 
is  the  Account  the  Evangelifl  gives  of  our  Saviour's  Re- 

Z  eeption 


238  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  V. 

ception  of  little  Children,  that  were  brought  to  him. 
Matth.  19.  14.  Suffer  little  Children  and  forbid  them  not 
to  come  unto  me^  J  or  of  fuch  is  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven^  Or 
the  Kingdom  of  God.  So  Mark  10.  14.  &  Luk  18.  16. 
Now  thefe  Words  of  our  Saviour,  we  think,  are  a  plain 
D-cifion  of  the  Cafe,  Whether  it  be  agreable  to  hisMind 
that  little  Children  (yea  Infants^  as  Luke  terms  them. 
Chap.  18.15.)  fhould  be  brought  to  him  tor  hisBlefi.ng  ? 
And  who  are  mod  acceptable  10  Chriil,  and  do  a  1  hing 
moft  pleafing  to  him, 1  hey  that  prefent  their  Iniant-Chil- 
drcrn  to  him  in  his  own  appointed  Way,  or  they  that 
withhold  them  and  forbid  their  being  brought  to  him  ? 
Our  Lord  was  much  difpleas'd  with  hisDifcip]es,who  re- 
buked thofe  that  brought  them,  faith  iV/i^r^.  Ch.  10.  14, 
They  thought  it  unworthy  of  their  Mailer  (who  had 
greater  and  higher  Employment)  to  take  Cognizance  of 
JittleChildrcn  ;  or  that  it  would  Occafion  a  greatDeal  of 
Trouble  to  him,  if  this  Example  were  followed  ;  or  for 
whatever  other  Reafons,  not  knowing  his  Pleafure  in  the 
Matter,they  foibad  the  bringing  ot  littieChildren  to  him. 
But  now  fince  Chnft  has  declared  his  Will,  iiuffer  little 
Children  and  forbid  them  not^  he.  how  much  more  may 
it  juftly  be  thought,  will  he  be  difpleas'd  with  thofe  that 
ftill  forbid  them  ?  TheForce  of  our  Argument  hence  lor 
Infant-Baptifm  does  not  lie  in  thefe  Things,  either  (i.) 
The  bringing  of  little  Children  or  Infants  to  Chrlft  ;  Or 
(2.)  Their  bringing  them  to  him  inOrder  to  be  baptized 
by  him  -,  Or  (3.)  1  hat  he  baptized  them  :  for  this  is  not 
faid.  Tht  firft  we  lay  no  great  Strefs  upon.  The  two 
lad  we  do  not  affirm.  And  yet  the  mainObjediions  ot  the 
Antipasdobaptifts  militate  againft  thefel  hings,  which  do 
not  enter  into  the  Argument.  But  we  argue  from  the 
Command  Chrift  gave  on  this  Occafion  concerning  the 
Infant- Children  oi  his  People,  together  with  the  keaioii 
of  it. 

Firfl.,  From  the  Command  given  by  Chrifl  on  this 
Occafion  both  Pofitive  bi  Negative.  Suffer  little  Children^ 
and  forbid  tlim  net  tw  ccnie  to  mc^  i.e.  to  become  my  Pro- 

felytes 


Chap.  V.  of  Infant-Baptifm.     .  339 

felytes  f  according  to  the  Etymology  of  theGreekWord, 
which  is  compounded  of  thePrepoiicion  c-f.?,and  theVerb 
«Mw,  which  {\<y^^\'i^  to  come  to)  for  in  this  Senfe  co7ningtQ 
Chnlt  is  elfewhere  underltood  ;  as  in  the  rext  1  hadOc- 
cafion  to  cite  before,  Joh.  3.26.  ^bey  came  tojchn^  and 
Jaid  unto  him^  Rabbi ^  be  tbat  was  witb  thee  beyond  Jordan 
— baptizetb^  and  all  Men  come  to  bim  ;  i.  e.  become  Fro- 
felytes  to  him,  and  that  by  receiving  Baptifm.     In  the 
fame  Stnic  our  Saviour  requires  littleChildren  &  Infants 
to  come  to  h'wciyStiffer  tbem  to  come,  is  as  much  as  to  fay. 
Admit  them  Profelytes  to  me,  and  forbid  tbem  rot,  do 
nothing  to  hinder   or  difcourage  their  coming  to  me, 
in  any   Way  in   which  they  are  capable  of  Profelytifm. 
Hence  we  are  taught  (1,)  That  little  Children  are  capa- 
ble of  being  made  Profelytes  toChrift  ♦,  which  is  the  fame 
Thing  inEifed  with  being  Difciples  of  Chrill.  And  why 
fliould  they  be  lefs  capable  of  this,  than  the  youngChil- 
drenof  Strangers  were  of  old  capable  of  beingProfelytes 
to Mofes  ?  What  can  be  objected  againft  the  former,  that 
does  not  hold  as   ftrong  againft  the   latter  P  (2,)  Chrift 
has   moreover  plainly  declared  his  Will,  that    the  In- 
fant-Children of  hisPeople  fhould  be  admitted  Profelytes 
to  him,  and  folemnly  initiated  into  hisReligion,and  pre- 
fenced  to  him  for  receiving  hisGrace  and  BlefTing.  And 
finceBaptifm  is  his  only  Inllitution  and  appointed iVIeans 
for  thisPurpofe,  to  enterPerfons  into  his  Religion  ;  there- 
fore this  Command  of  our  Saviour,  that  little  Children 
fhould  be  fuffered  to  come  to  bim^cis  thofe  did  who  became 
his  Profelytes  by  Baptifm, is  a  virtual  Command  for  bap- 
j  tizing  them  :   How  elfe  can  they  be  brought,  or  be  faid 
!  to  come  to  him  ?  Since  Chrifl  is  no  more  bodily  prefent 
I  onEarth,but  in  Heaven,  we  mud  either  fay,  This  Com- 
I  mand  of  Chrift  is  out  of  Date  fmce  his  Afcenfion,  and 
that  no  Regard  is  to  be  paid  to  it  by  Chriftians  -,  which 
is  contrary  to  his  Authority  &  Grace  in  his  New-Tefba- 
ment ;  or  elfc  admit, that  there  is  fomeWay  ftill  left,  in 
which  little  Children  are  now  capable  of  coming  to  him, 
and  in  which  it  is  hi?-  Will  that  the  Infants  of  his  New- 

Z  2  Covenant 


3  ^o.         A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.  V. 

Covenant- People  fhould  be  brought  and  offered  to  him 
for  his  BleiTing.  But  what  other  Way  can  this  be, than 
the  Way  of  hisOrdinances  (in  which  he  is  ftiU  fpiritually 
prefent  onEarth)  particularly  the  Ordinance  ot  Baptifm, 
which  he  has  appointed  lor  initiating  Profelytes  to  his 
Religion  ?  And  that  this  is  the  IVieaning  and  Defign  of 
this  Command  of  our  Saviour  is  evident, 

Sccondl)\¥ rom  tl^eReafon  added  to  enfoice  it, — For  of 
fuch  is  tbeKingdom  of  Heaven,  To  underlland  theForce  of 
which  Reafon,  we  need  noD  curiouQy  inquire,  Whether 
by  tbeKingdom  of  Heaven  is  meant  theKingdom  ofGrace, 
the  Gofpel- State  of  the  Church,  or  theKingdom.  of  Glo- 
ry, the  heavenly  State  ;  fince  both  thefe  are  one  and  the 
fame  Kingdom,  under  the  Adminiftration  of  Chrift,  the 
fupream  Head  and  King  ;  differing  in  the  Place  of  Re- 
fidence,  the  Kingdom  of  Grace  on  Earth,  and  the  King- 
dom of  Glory  in  Eieaven  :  As  the  Diftribution  is  ^Mq- 
where  made  of  the  whole  Family  of  Chrift  into  thofe  ia 
Heaven^  and  thofe  on  Earthy  Eph.  3.  14,  15.  Of  whom 
the  whole  Family  in  Heaven  and  Earth  is  named.  And  we 
learn  from  the  Author  to  the  Hebrews^  That  both  the 
Kingdom  of  Grace  &  that  of  Glory  make  up  one  facred 
Community  -,  when  he  tells  them, they  were  fc;;?r^inFaith 
and  Fellowlliip  —  to  the  heavenly  Jeriifalem^  to  the  innu- 
merable Company  of  AngeU^  to  the  General  Affembly  and 
Church  of  the  Firft-born  that  are  written  in  Heaven^and  to 
God  the  Judge  cf  all^  and  to  the  Spirits  of  ju§i  Men  made 
ferftti.  Heb.  12.  22,  23.  All  the  Difference  lies  in  the 
Degree  of  Pcrlection  ;  this  Kingdom  in  its  imperfect 
Beginnings  \\\  this\Vorld,is  called  rheKiiigdom  rf  Grace; 
in  its  lull  PeriVdion  and  Confummarion  hereafter,  the 
Kingdom  of  Glory.  The  ImperteCtion  of  Chriit's  vifi- 
ble  Kingdom  of  Grace  in  this  World,  lies  in  two  Things. 
{  .)  in  a  Mixture  of  carnal  Profeffbrs  Vv'ith  fincereSaints. 
(2.)  In  a  Mixture  ofGrace  and  Corruption  in  thofe  th^^t 
are  ffncere.  But  he  Kingdom  of  Glory  confills  of  only 
Saints,  and  thofe  made  periccl.  ']  he  Kingdom  o!  Grace 
is  a  preparatory  Inrf  odacUon  to  the  Kingdom  of  Glory  *, 

'      or 


Chap.  V.  of  Infant- Baptifm.         '  541 

or  the  Nurfery  from  whence  cheSubjeds  of  the  heavenly- 
Kingdom  are   tranfplanted.      I'his  divine  and  heavenW 
Government  of  theMediacor,  called  fo  often  in  iheGofpel 
theKingdom  of  God  and  of  Heave  n^hc'm^  one  and  the  fame, 
begun  in  this  prefent  State  of  Trial,  and  perfcditd  in  the 
future  State  of  Reward  and  Happinefs,  is  fometirnes    to 
be  undcrflood  more  eminently  of  the  Kingdom  or  Grace 
in  this  World,  fometirnes  more  eminently  of  the  tuture 
K'ngdom  of  Glory. Henceitto}lows(i)That  theKingdom 
of  Grace  being  a  State  of  preparatory  Di  cipline  lor  the 
heavenly  Kingdom,  but  diffeiing  from  it  with  Regard  tq 
its  Impertedion,    though  all  the  vifible  Subjeds  of  this 
Kingdom  of  Grace  fhali  not  inherit  the  Kingdom   of 
Glory,  but  many  fhall  be  excluded  through  a  D^thd.  of 
the  necelfdry  Qualifications ;  yet  all  thofe  of  whofe Title 
to  the  heavenly  Kingdom  there   is  good  Evid^^nce,   are 
undoubtedly  the  Subjedls  of  the  Kingdom  of  Grace. (2.) 
If  the  littleChildren  of  Believers  are  fuch  as  belong  tothe 
Kingdom  of  God,  then  they  are  capable  of  Regeneration 
by  the  Spirit,  and  of  the  outward  Sign  and  Seal  of  the- 
New  Birth,  which  is  Baptifm  with  Water  •,  for  without 
this  Regeneration  there  is  no  Entrance,  for  any  that  are 
born  of  a  corrupt  Stock,  into  the  Kingdom  of  God  -,  by 
the  Teftimony  ol  ourSaviour,  Joh.  3.  c^^6.  Except  a  Man. 
be  Korn  of  Water  and  of  'he  Spirit,  he  cannot  e?Uer  into  the^ 
Kingdom  of  God.  That  which  is  horn  of  theFlejh^  isFleJ/j,6:.c\. 
This  quite  takes  off  all  the  Objedions  of  the  Antipasdo- 
baptilts  from  Infants  Incapacity ,either  of  the  Thing  fig- 
nified  in  Baptifm,  or   of  the  outward  Sign  :  Yea,  and 
moreover  fhews  the  NeceiTity  of  Baptifm  of  fuch  Infants, 
as  Chrift's  ordinary  appointed  Means  of  Salvation.    And 
(3.)  Hence  thefe Words  of  ourSaviour,0//?/r/?  n  theKing- 
dom of  Heaven^-diXt  a  (IrongAfrertionoftheChurch'V^  ember- 
ihip  of  thelnfants  of  Believers  under  theGofpel  •,  whether 
we  underftand  by  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven^  the  Kingdom 
of  Grace,  or  of  Glory.     If  the  former,  his  Words  are  aa 
exprefs  and  direct  Declaration  of  hiS  owning  fuch  Chil- 
dren, as  the  Subjeds  of  his  Kingdom  in  this  World,  or 

Z  3  (which 


342  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  V. 

('which  is  the  fame)  Members  ot  his  Gofpel- Church.  If 
the  latter,  if  his  Words  be  under ftood  to  aflerc  their  Ti- 
tle to  the  Kingdom  of  Glory,  it  follows  by  undeniable 
Evidence,  according  to  thePurportof  the  foregoingRea- 
foning,  that  they  are  to  be  acknowledged  and  accounted 
Iviembers  of  the  Kingdom  of  Grace  •,  for  there  can  be  no 
furer  Demonftration  of  a  Perfon's  Interefl  in  the  Rights 
and  Privileges  of  the  Kingdom  ol  Grace,  or  ot  his  being 
conilituted  a  Member  of  the  Gofpel  Church,  than  the 
Evidence  of  his  Title  to  Glory.  And  i[  thefe  Words  of 
our  Saviour  afford  fuch  an  Evidence  on  the  Behalt  of  the 
Infant-Children  of  Behevers,  furely  he  would  have  them 
owned  as  the  Subjeds  of  his  Kingdom  in  this  World,  or 
the  Members  of  his  vifible  Church :  and  then  who  (hall 
dare  to  deny  them  the  Badge  of  their  Subjection  to  him, 
or  deprive  them  of  the  vifible  Sign  and  Seal  ot  their 
Church- Mcmberihip  ?  For  all  the  Members  of  the  vifi- 
ble Church  are,  by  the  Appoinrm^ent  of  Chnft,  to  be  fo- 
lemnly  initiated  by  Baptifm.  So  that  tho'  our  Saviour 
does  not  in  this  Paifage  fpeak  a  Word  of  the  Baptifm  of 
Infants,  yet  he  has  very  clearly  laid  down  theReafons  and 
Grounds  of  their  Baptifm,  and  has  implicitly  command- 
ed them  to  be  brougfit  and.  prefented  to  him  by  that  de- 
dicating Ordinance,  when  it  Ihould  be  fettled  as  the  or- 
dinary folemn  Rite  of  Admilfion  into  hisGofpel-Church, 
as  it  was  after  hisRefurredion.  Therefore  this  Paffage, 
among  many  others,  affords  a  good  Warrant  for  Infant- 
Baptilm.  All  Dr.  G/7/'sExceptions  to  this  E'^^idence  are 
impertinent,  and  prove  nothing,  to  the  Prejudice  of  the 
main  Argument  hence. 

(i.)  The  firft  Thing  he  has  to  fay,  is,  P.  ^6,  *'  Thefe 
*'  little  Children  don't  appear  to  be  new-born  Babes.** 
Anf,  But  Luke  fiys5they  were  Infants^  that  were  brought 
unto  him,  Lw;^.  i8.  15.  Tho*  the  other  Evangelilts]  ufe 
the  W^ord  Paidia^  of  a  more  large  Signification,  ior'liuk 
Cbildreti^  which  may  be  applied  to  fuch  as  do  fomewhat 
exceed  the  Age  of  Infancy,  as  well  as  proper  Infants  •,  yet 
the  Word  BrefkeCj  ufcd  by  Luke^  pins  down  the  Signifi- 
cation 


Chap.  V,  ^/ Infant-Baptifm.  ^45 

cation  of  the  Term  ro  thofe  of  the  Infant-i^ge,  and  pro- 
perly figniBes  an  Infant  or  new-born  Babe,  i\nd  \q  it  is 
rendered,  i  Pet.  2.  2.  Mr.  Leigh  faith  (  (ritica  Sacra  ) 
"  The  Word  fignifieth  Sucking- Babes,  which  they  car- 
"  ried  in  their  Anns."  Therefore  rhere  are  none  of  the 
Texts,  quoted  by  Dr.  G77/,at  all  pertinent  to  his  Purpofe, 
but  one  which  hath  the  Word,  rendred  Infants  in  Luke, 
which  is  2  Tim.  3  15.  where  Paul  faith  ol  Timothy.,  thai 
from  a  Child  (or  Infant)  he  knew  the  Holy  Scriptures.  But 
even  this  is  nothing  to  his  Purpofe  :  For  theApoftle  does 
not  fay, that  adually  while  a  Child  (or  when  an  Infant  J  he 
knew  the  Holy  Scriptures  ;  hut  from  a  Child.,  (or  from  his 
Infant- Age  )  as  foon  as  he  was  capable  of  knowing  any 
Thing,  he  knew  the  Holy  Scriptures,  being  inftruded 
therein  by  theCareofhis  piousMother  and  Grandmother. 
(Chap.  i.5.;NordoesChrift*s  calling  them  to  him, ''prove 
"  that  they  were  able  to  go  alone."  For  he  may  pro- 
perly be  faid  to  call  them  unto  him, when  he  called  thofe 
that  brought  them.  Luk.  18.  15,  16.  They  brought  unto 
him  Infants.,  that  he  would  touch  them  :  but  when  his  Bif- 
ciples  faw  it.,they  rebuked  them.  But  Jefus  called  them  unto 
him.  Whom  the  Difciples  rebuked,  Jefus  called  :  and 
in  calling  them  unto  him,  he  Cilled  their  Infants  which 
they  bro't  in  their  Arms.  And  what  is  faid  of  ontpnjfefl 
of  the  Devil.,  his  being  bro't  to  Chrift,  Matt.  12.  22. And 
of  aLunatick,  Chap.  ij.  16.  is  no  Way  parallel  to  t\\t 
prefent  Cafe  :  For  of  thefe  little  Children  it' is  faid,  that 
Chrift  took  them  up  in  his  Arms.  Mar.  10.  16.  and  the 
Child  ht  took  into  his  Arms,  Mar.  ^.  '^6.  for  ought  that 
appears  to  the  contrary,  was  an  Infant-Child. 

(2.  J  He  fays,  P.  67.  *'  It  is  not  known,  whofe  Chi!- 
"  dren  thefe  were."  But  whatisihis  to  the  Purpofe  .?  The 
Names  indeed  of  the  Parents  of  thefe  Children  arc  not 
recorded  :  but  that  they  were  the  Children  of  fuch  as  be- 
lieved in  Chrifl:,is  pad  all  reafonableDoubt  ;  the'r  bring- 
ing iheir  Infants  unto  him  for  his  Prayer  and  BlefTing,  as 
Matthew,  declare*,  Chap.  19.  13.  was  an;Expreffion  of 
the  high  Efteem  they  had  of  him,   a$  an  extraordinary 

Z  4.  Perfoflj 


344         ^  'Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.V. 

Perron,as  a  divine  MelTenger  or  a  Prophet  (  according  to 
the  Evidence  they  had  oi  his  divine  MillionJ  if  not  as  the 
Mefiias.  But  Lbrift  out  did  their  Expe6tations,in  tak- 
ing up  their  Children  in  hisArms,  putting  hisHands  upon 
ibem^  and  bleffmg  them^  and  giving  ageneralRule  on  that 
Qccafipn  ior  the  Reception  oifuch  little  Children,  as  the 
Members  of  his  Church  and  Kingdom.  And  we  may- 
be fure,  theUnbelievers  of  thatNation,thofe  that  rejedcd 
his  Perfon  and  Doctrine,  would  never  bring  their  little 
Children  to  him  for  that  Purpofe.  He  proceeds  to  fay, 

(3.)  '■  It  is  certain, that  they  were  not  brought  toChrift 
^'  to  be  baptized  by  him."  (ibid.)  Who  affirms  it }  This 
is  nothing  to  the  Argument :  which  is,  thatChrift  took 
this  Occafion  to  cjc'clare  their  Right  to  Baptifm,  as  has 
been  Ihewed  ;  and  though  theEvangelifls  do  not  fay,that 
Chrifl  baptiz'd  them,  or  order'd  his  Difciples  to  baptize 
them,  yet  they  fay  that  which  fufficiently  authorizes  our 
baptizing  them.  The  Evangelill  Mark  tells  us,  that 
Chnft  put  his  Hands  on  them,  and  blefled  them.  He 
conier'd  his  BlelTing  on  them,  The  Thing  fignified  in 
Baptifm  ;  and  he  made  ufe  of  a  vifible  figniiigant  Cere- 
mony, in  conveying  the  Bleffing,  He  laid  his  Hands  on 
them.  Whence  it  appears,  (i.)  That  our  Children,  yea 
little  Infants  are  capable  of  the  Redeemer's  Grace  and 
Pleflirg,  and  fome  are  actually  the  Subjeds  of  ic :  And 
it  is  the  Will  of Chrift,  that  Believers  fhould  bring  all 
their  Infants  to  him  to  receive  his  Bleffing.  (2.)  That 
they  ^re  capable  of  the  outward  Sign, as  well  as  theThing 
fignified,  and  had  it  applied  to  them  in  Chrift's  putting 
his  Hands  upon  them.  And  fince  Baptifm  is  now  the 
vifible  iriftitgted  Rite  of  Dedication  to  Chntt,  and  the 
appointed  Means  of  his  Grace  and  Bleffing  ♦,  when  this 
is  adminifter'd  to  our  Infant-Children  by  an  Officer  of 
Chrift  according  to  his  Inftitution,  what  is  it  mere  than 
pu'tin^  his  Hands  upon  them  ?  Chrift's  Bleffing  is  the 
greater  Thing,  which  we  read  he  actually  ccnter'd  on 
thefe  Children  ;  and  the  Collation  of  the  greater  Thipg 
virtually  includes  a  Grant  of  the  kfs.  It  is  utterly  im- 
probable 


Chap.  V.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  545 

probable,that  thefe  Infants  might  be  brought  toChrift  to 
be  cu  ed  of  any  Difeafe,  as  Dr.  Gz^  imagines  ♦,  if  they 
were  fo,  we  can't  inReafon  think,that  theDifciples  would 
have  rebuked  them  ;  lince  this  would  have  been  to  adl  an 
inhumanParc towards  them  ;  buttheircoming  toChrill  fof 
thisEnd,would  have  been  for  theHonourot  theirMafter, 
giving  himOccafionfortheDifplayof  hismiracuionsPow- 
er.  BefideSjtheEvangeliftA/^/Z^^w  tells  us,as  was  obferv'd 
h€\Q\^Shey  hrcught  them  to  him  that  he  luouldput  hisHands 
on  them  and  pray  \  which  the  other  Evangelifts  exprefs  by 
touching  them  \  by  which  they  feem  to  mean  no  more 
than  the  Ceremony  of  BlefTing,  in  Ufe  among  the  Jews, 
by  touching,  or  laying  Hands  on  thofe,  on  whom  they 
prayed  tor  a  BlelTing.     But  he  goes  on  to  fay, 

(4.  j  "  This  PalTage  concludes  againft  PaedobaptiJrn,- 
*'  and  not  for  it."P.68.Let  us  hear  his  far-fetch'dReafon, 
*'  Poritfeems  by  this,that  it  had  never  been  thePradice 
*'  of  the  Jews^  nor  of  Johyi  theBaptift,  nor  of  Cbriil:,and 
"  hisDifciples,to  baptize  Infants :  for  had  this  been  then 
"  in  Ufe,  theApoftles  would  have  fcarcely  rebuked  and 
"  forbid  thofe  that  brought  thefe  Children,  fince  they 
*'  might  have  concluded  they  brought  them  to  be  bap- 
*'  tized,"  &c.  This  looks  plaufible,  and  perhaps  may 
take  with  the  inconfiderate.  But  has  he  fo  foon  forgotten 
what  he  had  fo  ftrongly  afierred  under  the  lad  Head  ? 
"  Certain  it  is,  that  they  were  not  brought  toChrift  to  be 
"  baptized  by  him."  But  that  "  probably  being  difeafed 
*'  they  were  brought  to  him  to  be  cured  "  But  if  this 
were  io  certain,  why  fhould  not  the  ApoRles  know  ir,  as 
well  as  Dr.  Gill  ?  But  that  which  fpoils  all  this  fair  Flou- 
rilh,  is  this  oneConfideration,  that  our  Lord  baptized  not 
any,  Iniants  or  Aduks^but  hisDifcipks.  Joh.  4.  2.  Which 
our  Author  himfelf  takes  Notice  of  under  the  former 
Head  ;  and  furely  this  could  not  be  unknown  ro  theDif- 
ciples •,  who  therefore  could  never  imagineorconclude,that 
tfjey  brought  their  Children  to  Chrill:  to  be  baptized. 
Truch  only  IS  feh-confiilent:  butError,we  fee, often  clalhes 
with  itfeit.  But  that  it  was  the  Cultom  of  the  Jews  many 

Ages 


34^  A  Defence  of  the  Divin  Right  Chap.  V. 

Ages  before  theDays  of  our  Saviour,to  baptize  the  young 
Children  of  Profelytes,  whether  Male  or  Female,  as  well 
as  to  circumcife  the  Males,  is  fo  well  known,  and  attefted 
by  fo  many  learned  Men  who  have  been  converfant  in 
the  Jewifh  Writings,  *  that  we  mud  renounce  theFaith 
of  all  humanTeftimony,  if  thisFad  be  denied.  And  there 
is  no  Reafon  to  think   but  that  the  Jews  bro't  their  Chil- 
dren to  John's  Baptifm, according  to  what  was  cufloma- 
ry  in  theirNation-,  though  theEvangelift  in  the  brief  and 
general  Account  he  gives  of  his  Baptifm,    contain'd  in 
but  three  or  four  Verfes,  palTes  it  over  in  Silence :  and  if 
Imagination  may  do  thcBufinefs  of  Argument,  why  may 
not  I  imagine,  that  thefe  very  Children  had  been  baptiz- 
ed, and  as  it  was  a  Cuflom  in  the  primitive  Church  for 
the  Apoftles  to  lay  Hands  on  thofe  who  were  baptiz'd, 
as  a  fignificant  Ceremony  of  conferring  fome  peculiar 
fpiritual  Gifts  on  them,  efpecially  if,as  Dr.  fVail  thinks  f 
'*  There  is  good  Reafon  to   believe  that  the  Jews  had 
*'  before  u fed  this  Ceremony  of  laying  on  of  H  .nds  on 
"  this  Occafion  •,  for  it  was  a  Thing  ufed  by  them  on 
*'  almoft  all  Occafions  that  were  folemn.*'  Therefore  the 
Parents  of  thefe  Children,  having  had  them  baptized, 
might  bring  them  to  Jefus,defiring  him  to  put  hisHands 
on  them  and  pray  :  which  the  Difciples  might  think  too 
great  Prefumption,  and  for  that  Reafon  rebuke  them  ; 
and  fo  their  forbidding  them  may  be  eafily  accounted  lor, 
notwithfhanding  their  knowing  the  Baptifm  of  Infants  to 
have  been  in  Ufe  in  that  Nation  long  before.     But  to 
return  to  our  Author. 

5  He  thinks  thisPaflage  alledg'd  befide  the  Purpofe, 
bccaufc  it  is  not  alledg'd,  "  to  prove  that  Infants  were 
''  brought  to  Chrill  in  order  to  be  baptized  by  him." 
But  he  might  know,the  Psedobaptifts  do  not  lay  theStrefs 
of  the  Argument  on  the  Intention  of  thofe  that  brought 
their  Infants  to  Chrift,  whatfoever  it  were  •,  but  on  his 
Reception  of  them,  his  putting  his  Hands  upon  them, and 

blefTing 

*  Vid.  Dr.  UghtfoGt,  Hor.  Hebr.  &Talm.  m'Matth.  3.  6.  X>x,lVali\ 
Imrod,  to  the  MiU.  of  Infant- Baptifm.       f  Ihid,  §   7. 


Chap.  V.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  347 

bleffing  them  •,  his  taking  that  Occafion  to  declare  them 
the  Members  of  his  Church  and  Kingdom  ;  and  fignify- 
ing  his  Will,  that  luch  little  Ones  fliould  ht  fuffered  to 
come  to  him,  or  admitted  into  his  vifible  Church,  and  that 
his  People  fliould  not  be  forbidden  or  reflrained  from 
offering  them  up  to  him  in  any  Way  fuitable  to  that  Pur- 
pofe.  And  in  whatWay  can  they  doit,more  fuitable  and 
proper,  now  he  has  withdrawn  his  bodily  Prefence,  than 
in  the  Way  of  his  Ordinances,  wher^  he  is  ftili  fpiritually 
prefent  (as  has  been  faid)  and  particularly  in  the  Way  cf 
Baptifm,  which  is  his  initiating  &  dedicating  Ordinance. 
To  elude  theForce  of  theReafon  ourSaviour  gives, /<7r  of 
fuch  is  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  •,  he  flys  to  a  metaphorical 
ijenfe,  which  he  has  found  more  than  once  to  be  of  Ufe 
to  him  to  help  him  out  at  a  Plunge,  when  the  plain  literal 
Senfe  ot  Words  makes  againft  him.  He  would  have  it 
underftood  "  of  fuch  as  are  comparable  to  little  Children 
"  for  Modefty,  Meeknefs,and  Humility  &c."  But  this 
Meaning  can't  be  put  on  our  Saviour's  Words,  without 
{training  them  :  For  {i)  ThefeW^ords  of  Q\ir\%Offuch 
is  tbeKingdom  of  Heaven^^vQ  fcarce  intelligible,  unlefs  they 
refer  to  little  Children  in  a  proper  literal  Senfe ;  and 
they  can  reler  to  none  elfe  in  theirConnedlion  :  they  were 
fuch  little  Children  as  were  brought  to  Chhfl,  fuch  as  he 
itook  in  his  Arms,  of  fuch  ('faith  hej  is  the  Kingdom  of 
\Heaven,  No  Man  furely  can  deny  the  literal  Senfe,  but 
!in  Favour  of  fomeHypothefis  which  can't  confift  with  it. 
iWhen  our  Saviour  goes  on  to  fpeakof  fuch  as  are  to  be 
jcompar'd  to  little  Children  for  a  mild  and  humbleDifpo- 
jfition,  he  ufes  a  Note  of  Comparifon,  Mar,  10.  13. — 
'^AS  a  little  Child,  OurAuthor  indeed  quotes  the  ^yriac^ 
I  and  Perfic  Verfion,  as  favouring  his  Senfe,in  rendring  the 
I  Words,  Who  are  as  thefe.  But  this  only  ihewsthat  there 
iare  feme  faulty  Tranflations  :  the  authentickGreek  Ori- 
jginal  has  no  fuch  Note  of  Similitude.  •  (2.)  It  is  further 
jeviden'-,  that  our  Lord  intendsInfant-Children  in  a  pro- 
■per,  and  not  a  figurative  Senfe  in  thefe  Words,  becaufc 
.  ihty  are  given  as  a  Reafon  wh.y  little  Children  Ibould  be 

broughc 


345  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.  V. 

brought  to  him,  and  not  forbidden  :  And  the  Reafon  is 
very  pertinent  and  cogent  •»  Let  littleChildrcn  be  prefen- 
ted  to  me,  for  1  receive  fuch  as  the  Members  &  Subjeds 
of  my  Kingdom.  But  of  what  Force  is  the  Reafon,  My 
Kingdom  confifts  of  meek  &  humble  ChriftianSjthat  are 
like  Httle  Children,  therefore  let  little  Children  come  to 
me  ?  It  only  aRefemblance  ot  little  Children  inVleeknefs- 
andHumility,&c.  were  intended,  "chat  might  have  ferv'd 
"  for  a  Reafon  why  Doves  &Lambs  fhould  be  brought  to 
*'  him,"  as  Mr.  Henry  well  notes.  For  the  true  Subjedts, 
of  Chriil  are  in  Scripture  compar'd  to  thofe  Animals  for 
a  meek  and  humble  Difpofition,  as  well  as  to  little  Chil- 
dren. But  if  this  be  a  Reafon  why  little  Children  inAgc 
fhould  be  brought  to  him,  who  can  doubt  his  Meaning 
to  be,  that  of  fuchChildrenjin  a  proper  Senfe,  is  theKing- 
dom  of  God.  Nor  can  we  make  any  Doubt  but  that  the 
offering  our  Infant-Children  to  him  in  the  Way  of  his 
Appointment,on  theWarrant  of  this  his  graciousDeclara- 
tion  on  their  Behalf,  will  be  accepted  as  a  gratetui  Obla- 
tion to  him.  Ouri\uihor  fuggefts,  that  "  it  the  Words 
be  literally  underftood  of  Infants  belonging  to  the  King- 
dom of  Heaven,  interpreted  of  a  Gofpel-Church-Stace, 
they'i  prove  too  much, namely, that  they  have  aRight  to  all 
theFrivileges  of  it, to  theLord's  Supper  as  well  as  toBap- 
tifm."  F.69.  But  this  is  not  proving  too  much  ;  not  more 
than  thePsedobaptifts  are  wiilingto  grant.  The  littleChil- 
dren  of  confederate  Believers  beir.g  in  v  ifibleCovenant  with 
God,  and  confequently  Members  of  the  vifible  Church, 
have  an  undoubted  Right  to  all  the  vifible  Privileges  of 
it,  fand  ought  to  be  admitted  to  theEnjoyment  of  them, 
as  far  as  their  Capacity  goes)  even  the  Lord's  Supper,  as 
well  asBapiifm.  They  have  aRight  totheLord'sSupper,  as 
a  Ferfon  inMinority  has  to  an  Inheritance.whom  nothing 
but  Incapacity  hinders  from  aclual  Pofieflion.  And  if 
our  Adverfaries  could  prove,  that  Infants  are  alike  inca* 
pable  of  Baptifm,  as  they  are  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  we 
might  be  content  to  deter  their  Baptifm  till  riper  Years. 
The  Ordinance  of  the  Lord's  Supper  does  in  the  Nature 

of 


Chap.  V.  of  Infant -Baptifm.  ^49 

of  it  require  fucb  A6ls  of  the  Receivers,as  adult  Chriftians 
only  are  capable  of  •,  who  have  fome  competent  Meafure  of 
Chriftian  Knowlege,  the  Exercife  of  Reafon  and  Under- 
flanding,  and  of  their  adive  Powers  :  They  muft  take 
tne  facred  Elements,  eat  and  drink^  and  do  this  in  Remem- 
brance of  Chrift  •,  difcern  the  Lord's  Body  &c.  (fetting  a- 
fide  theConfideration  of  the  necefTaryPre-requifiteof  Self- 
Examinarion)  all  which  Infants  are  incapable  of,'till  they 
come  to  Years  of  Underftanding  ;  and  when  they  do  fo, 
they  ought  to  claim  their  Right  to  this  Privilege  of  the 
vjfible  Church,  by  profeffing  their  Adherence  to  the  Co- 
venant of  their  Baptifm.  But  thefeWordsof  our  Saviour 
were  immediately  defign'd  as  aReafon  for  littleChildren's 
coming  to  him  in  the  Way  they  are  capable  of ;  and  I 
have  fully  prov'd  that  Infants  are  Subjects  capable  of  the 
initiaringSacrament  of  Baptifm, theAdminiftration  where- 
of does  not  nereflarily  require  the  Exercife  of  Reafon  and 
Refledtion  in  the  Subje6l  recipient  ;  but  it  may  beadmi- 
niftred  (and  the  Adminiftracion  valid)  to  aSubjed  more 
pailive  j  fo  that  there  is  no  Incapacity  on  the  Part  ofln- 
fants,that  can  be  objeded  as  a  Reafon  againft  their  Bap- 
tifm, but  what  might  with  equal  Reafon  be  objected  a- 
gainil  the  Circumcifion  of  Infanxs  under  the  Law. 

Dr.  G/7/,  it  feems,  is  willing  to  admit  the  literal  Senfe 
of  the  Words, if  interpreted  ot  "  the  Kingdom  ot  Glory," 
P. 70.  For,  fays  he,  "  The  eternal  Salvation  and  Happi- 
*'  of  Infants,dying  in  Infancy.is  not  denied  by  us."  And 
he  fuppofes  that  "  theSouls  of  Infants  are  faved  byChriil, 
"  ^nd  that  they  are  introduc'd  by  him  into  theKingdom 
"  of  Heaven."  Then  I  afk,  Are  Infants  introduc'd  by 
Chrift  into  theKingdom  of  Heaven, purely  becaufe  they 
are  Infants,  without  Regard  to  Redemption  through  his 
Blood,  or  without  theApplication  of  that  Redemption  to 
them  t  This,  I  am  perluaded,  will  not  be  faid.  Now 
then,  fince  it  is  evident  from  theWord  of  God,that  none 
of  the  apoftate  polluted  Race  of  Men,  young  or  old.  In- 
fant or  Adult,  ever  were,or  (hall  be  admitted  to  theKing- 
dom of  Glory,  but  thofe  who  are  purified  and  prepared 

and 


35^  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  V. 

and  made  meet  for  it  by  the  Application  of  the  Redee- 
mer's Grace  in  this  Life  ;  and  this  ordinarily  in  the  Ufc 
of  fuch  outwardMeans  as  he  has  thought  fit  to  appoint ; 
it  undeniably  follows,that  Infants  are  Subjedls  of  the  Ap- 
plication of  Chrift's  Redemption  in  this  Life,in  Order  to 
their  Entrance  into  Heaven,  and  therefore  belong  to  his 
Kingdom  of  Grace :  and  one  of  the  outwardMeans  of  this 
Application,  appointed  by  Chrift,  &  of  which  Infants  are 
capable,is  the  wafloing  of  Heater  inBaptifm.  So  theApofllc 
teaches  us,  Eph.  5.  25,  26,  27.  Chrill  loved  his  Churchy 
and  gave  him f elf  for  it  \  that  he  might  fan^ify  and  cleanfe 
it  mth  the  wa/hing  of  Water  by  the  Word  ;  that  he  might 
p^efent  it  to  himfeif  a  glorious  Churchy  &c.  From  whence 
it  appears  (ij  That  all  who  are  faved  and  bro't  at  lall 
to  theKingdom  of  Glory, are  fuch  as  belong  to  theChurch 
of  Chriit  in  this  World,  for  v/hich  he  gave  himfeif  in 
hisDeach,  to  fandify  &  cleanfe  it.  {2)  That  Baptifm  or 
baptifmal  w  afhing  of  Water  h  one  of  Chrift'sOrdinanceSjOr 
appointed  Means  of  the  Application  of  the  faving  Bene- 
fits of  his  Death  for  their  Sandtification  and  Cleanfing. 
(3.)  If  the  Souls  of  Infants  be  faved  in  the  Way  of  Re- 
demption through  the  Blood  of  Chrift,  if  they  be  intro- 
duced by  him  into  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven,  then  fince 
Infants  are  not  born  free  trom  the  Pollution  of  human 
Nature,  they  muft  be  the  Subjefts  of  the  Application  of 
theDeath  of  Chrift  for  their  cleanfin*g  in  this  Life,  prepa- 
ratory to  their  Introduction  into  theKingdom  of  Glory. 
And  Dr.  Gill  by  his  own  ConcefTion  muft  be  forc'd  to 
yield  to  this  Conclufion  :  for  he  acknowledges  "thePol- 
*'  lution  of  human  Nature  propagated  by  natural  Ge- 
*'  neration,"  which  needsRegeneration  and  "  cleanfing 
*'  by  theBlood  of  Chrift,"  of  which  he  confefTesCircum- 
cifion  was  a  Sign,  P.  57.  And  no  lefs  is  Baptifm,  as  wc 
have  feen.  And  furely  it  will  be  granted,  that  no  un- 
clean Thing  fliall  enter  into  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  : 
Therefore  Infants  being  naturally  unclean,  they  muft  be 
the  Subje6ls  of  the  cleanfing  Vertue  of  Chrift's  Blood, 
before  they  can  have  Admittance  thither.     But  now  to 

fay. 


Chap.  V.  ef  Infant-Baptifm.  351 

fay,  that  Infants  are  Subje6i:s  of  the  preparatory  Difpenfa- 
tion  of  the  Rederner's  Grace  in  this  Lite,  is  as  much  as 
to  fay,  they  are  Subjeds  of  his  Kingdom  ot  Grace,or  be- 
long to  his  Gofpel-Church,  tor  which  he  gave  himfelfin 
his  l;eath,  tfrnt  he  might farMify  and  cleanfe  it,  &c.(4j  If 
Infants  can't  be  denied  to  be  the  Subjects  of  the  Difpen- 
fation  of  the  Grace  of  Chrift,  in  their  Regeneration  and 
fpiritual  Cleanfing,how  unwarrantable  is  it  to  deny  then^ 
the  outward  Sign  and  Means  of  this  Cleanfing  ;  which 
.  Chrift  has  appointed  for  the  Application  of  the  faving 
1:  Benefits  of  his  Death,  or  of  the  fandtifying  and  cleanfing 
Vertue  of  it,  to  all  the  Members  of  his  vifible  Church  ; 
and  which  Infants  appear  to  be  capable  of,  which  is  the 
Baptifmal  l^Fa/hing  of  Water  ? 

Dr.  G;7/,  on  Suppofition  that  the  Kingdom  of  Glory 

3s  here  intended,  thinks  it  an  Argument  of  greater  Force 

why  our  Saviour  fhould  cure  thefe  littleChildren  of  their 

bodily  Diftempers  ^  and  fays,  P.70.  ''  According  to  this 

"  Senfe,  our  Lord's  reafoning  is  ftrong,    that  feeing  he 

*'  thought  fit  to  fave  the  Souls  of  Infants,   why  fhould 

*'  they  be  forbid  being  brought  to  him  to  be  touch'd  by 

"  him,  and  healed  ot  their  Bodily  Difeafes  ?  TheArgu- 

*'  ment  is  from  the  greater  to  the  lefs."  — But,I  confefs,! 

fee  no  Force  at  all  in  this  Reafoning  :  for  theArgument 

muft  run  thus,  Becaufe   the  Souls  of   dying  Infants  are 

jfure  to  be  faved  by  ChrifV,  thereforeChrift  was  willing  to 

prevent  the  dying  of  thefe  Children  in  their  Infancy,  by 

healing  their  Difeafes  /  And  fo  their  Salvation  would  be 

left  to  an  Uncertainty.     If  our  Saviour  had  not  healed 

thefe  Children,but  left  them  to  die  ot  their  fuppofedDif- 

eafes.  Dr.  Gill  makes  noDoubt  but  that  they  would  have 

llbeen  introduced  into  theKingdom  of  Heaven  ;  but  being 

ij healed  of  their  Difeafes,  and  living  to  adult  Age,    they 

jimight  have  forfeited  theirRightby  adualTranfgrefTions, 

Ijand  fo  finally  might  have  mifs'd  of  Heaven  :    and  there- 

ijfore  theCcrtainty  of  their  Salvation  inCafe  of  dying  inln- 

jjfancy,  feems  rather  an  Argument  againft  healing  them. 

But  indeed  it  is  a  ^roundlefs  Imagination,  cither  that 

1;  thele 


35^         A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  Vr 

thefe  Children  were  brought  to  Chrifl  to  be  healed  of  any- 
bodily  Difeafe,  or  that  he  improv'd  this  as  an  Argument 
ior  theirHeahng,  that  of  fuch  is  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven. 

I  have  now  particularly  confidered  all  that  is  material  in 
Dr.  Giir%  Objections  againft  the  Argument  trom  this 
PafTage  in  Behalf  ot  Intant-Baptifm,and  have  fufficiently 
fhewed  how  weakly  and  impertinently  they  are  urged. 
Yet  he  concludes  after  his  ufual  Manner,with  faying,this 
Argument  "  furnifhes  out  nothing  in  Favour  of  Fsedo- 
"  baptifm."  Confidence,  I  fee,  in  denying  theConclu- 
fion,  when  the  Premifes  cannot  be  overthrown,  muftftill 
fupply  the  Defedl  of  Argument. 

111.  Another  Text  produced  in  the  Dialogue,  which 
ourAuthor  has  tho't  fit  to  reply  to,is,  M  ath.  i8.  6.  but 
whofofiall  offend  one  of  thefe  littleOnesthat  believe  in  me^^c. 
The  main  Argument  and  Conclufion  defign'd  in  theDi- 
aiogue  to  be  drawn  from  thefe  Words,having  been  fully 
vindicated  under  the  foregoing  Head,  there  will  be  the 
lefs  Need  of  faying  much  to  this :  nor  fhall  I  infill  long 
vpan  it.  For  tho'  I  think  it  hath  its  Weight,  to  the 
Purpofe  for  which  it  was  alledg'd^yet  fineelnterpreters  are 
divided  in  their  Sentiments  about  thefe  little  0;^^j,which 
Chriftfpeaks  of  as  believing  in  hiwyit  may  be  the  lefs  con- 
vidive  to  a  wrangling  Ad  verfary.  Some  by  ihtklittleOnes 
underftand  weakChriil:ans,little  Children  in  a  figurative 
Senfe,fuch  as  are  little  in  their  ownEyes,Gr  little  inKnow- 
lege&  Grace  :  OcherSylittleChildren  inAge,in  the  proper 
Senfeof  theWord,in  whichSenle  theContext  feems  plainly 
to  carry  it.  TheDifciples  being  at  thatTime  full  of  afpir- 
ing  Thoughts  and  Defigns,  our  Saviour,  to  check  iheir 
Ambition  and  Emulation,  (the  Evangelift  tells  us,  y^  2.) 
^ook  a  little  Child^  and  fet  him  in  the  midjl  of  them,  as  an 
Emblem  of  Humility  :  and  having  made  an  Appli- 
cation of  it  for  that  Furpofe,  to  teach  them  a  LefTon 
of  Humility,  ver.  3,4.  he  proceeds  to  fay,  ver.  5. 
•  JVhofo  fhall  receive  one  fuch  little  Child  in  myName^  receiv- 
eth  me.  To  what  can  thatExprefrion,^;;^///^:^  littleChild, 
refer  in  the  proper  Grammatical  Conflrud:ion,  but  to  the 

little 


Chap.  V.  cf  Infant-'Baptifm.  J53 

littleChlld  which  he  had  fct  before  them  ?  And  which  he 
then  had  in  his  Arms,  faith  A/<:zr^'  j    the  Conneclion  of 
whofe  Words  do  more  clearly  determine  this  to  be  the 
Senfe.     He  took  a  Child  —  and  when  he  had  taken  him  in 
his  Arnis^  he  faid  unto  them^  tVhofoever  [hall  receive  one  of 
fuch  Children  in  my  Name^  receiveth  me.  Mar.  9.  36,  37. 
The  Phrafe  oi  receiving  a  Child  in  my  Name^  imports 
the  receiving  it  becaufe  it  belongs  to  Chrifl :  So  ourLord 
himfelf  explains  it  in  the  following  Context,  f.^iWhofo- 
ever jhallgiveyou  aCu'p\of  Water  to  drink  in  myName^hecaufe 
you  belong  to  Chriji.     And  having  fpoken  of  receivino-  a 
little  Child  in  bisName,he  immediately  addsthe  Words 
quoted,  fVhofo  JJja' I  offend  one  of  thefe  little  Ones  that  be- 
lieve in  me  \   q.  d.    One  fuch  little  One   as  this    which  I 
hold  in  myArms.     This  feems  the  genuine  literal  Senfe  ^ 
tho  it  be  granted,  that  our  Saviour  might  have  a  further 
Reach  in  thefe  ExprefTions,  and  infenfibly  Aide  into  the 
metaphorical  Senfe,  as  he  did  on  other  Occafions,  in  his 
Admonitions  andCautions  againft  offending  or  defpifing 
themeaneft&weakeltChriftians.  And  truly  1  fee  noReafon, 
why  thofe  two  Interpretations  mentionM,fhould  be  fetin 
Oppofition  to  each  other,as  inconfjftent ;  forlitcleChildrea 
in  Age  belong  to  Chrift*s  Family,   (no  lefs  than  thofe 
Chriftians  who  are  more  grown,  being  yet  comparable  ta 
little  Children  in  Point  of  Meannefs,  or  Humility^  and 
are  to  be  received  in  his  Name,  becaufe  they  belong  ta 
Chrift  :    and  he  bears  a  tender  Affeclion  towards  them, 
as  theLambs  of  his  Flock,  and  takes  it  ill,  that  either  one 
or  theother  Ihould  be  wrong'd  or  defpis'd  :  And  becaufe 
they  belong,  to  him,  and  are  the  Subjects  of  his  Grace,th6 
in  its  weak  Beginnings,  he  reckons  them  in  the  Number 
of  Believers. — Nor  is  there  any  greatWeight  in  Dr.  Gill\ 
Obje:tions. — (i.)  He  grants  that  ''Uhe  little  Child  mtn- 
tioned,  f.  2,  was  in  an  Infant-State,"  P.  71.  yet  denies 
they  were  "little  Ones  in  Age,"  whom  Chrift  fpake  of  in 
the  following  Verfes  ftho'  his  Words  plainly  relate  to  fuch 
a  little  Child  as  he  held  in  his  Arms  at  the  fame  7  ime) 
becaufe  fuch  little  Ones  are  not  "capable  oi  exercifing  or 
A  4  becaufe 


354  ^  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.  V. 

a6llng  Faith."  But  their  being  denominated  Believers  in 
Chrift,  does  not  neceflarily  luppole  the  prefent  ading  of 
Faith  J  othervviie  a  true  Chriftian,  when  he  ceafes  to  adt 
Faith,  or  when  he  is  afleep,  ceafes  to  be  Behever.  And  if 
an  Infant  may  be  properly  termed  a  rational  Creature,  on 
Account  of  the  naruralGiit  of  Reafon,th6  at  prefent  it  lie§ 
dormant  •,  why  m.ay  not  fuch  an  Intant  be  denominated 
aBeliever,  on  the  Account  of  the  fupernatural  Gift  of  re- 
generating Grace  :  Which  includes  Faith,  as  tar  as  the 
faid  natural  Gift  includes  Reafon,  that  is,  in  the  Seed  and 
Principle  of  it  ?  And  if  Chrift  will  fo  interpret  theWork 
of  his  ownGrace  inJnfants,whoihall  object  againft  it  ? — 
AnotherReafon  he  gives,  is,  becaufe  fuch  little  Ones  arc 
"  not  capable  of  being  offended,  in  the  Senfe  theWord  is 
here  ufed."  But  what  greater  Offence  or  Injury  can  be 
done  thern,  than  to  cut  them  off  from  their  Right  in  the 
Covenant  of  Salvation,  which  God  has  gracioully  granted 
them,  and  from  ail  Intereft  in  the  Privileges  of  the  Gof- 
pel  ?  Would  it  not  be  look'd  upon  as  an  high  Offence 
committed  againft  Clirift's  little  Ones  ffuppcfing  them 
fuch  as  are  grown  to  feme  Maturity  of  Underftanding)  if 
they  fliould  be  debarred  Communion  with  the  vifible 
Church  in  the  Ordinances  of  the  Gofpel, which  they  have 
a  iuftClaim  ro,  and  be  excluded  among  Aliens, who  have 
no  Hope  in  Chritt,  and  driven  out  from  abiding  in  the  In* 
heritance  of  the  Lord  ?  As  David  fpeaks  of  the  Offence 
committed  agai.nft  him,  and  pronounces  a  Curfe  on  th€ 
A'juhors  oi  it,  i  Sam,  26.  19.  And  tho  our  Adverfaries 
fijcw  by  their  Opinion  and  Practice,  that  they  efteem  it  a 
light  Matter,and  even  no  Offence  at  ail, if  the  fame  Thing 
be  done  to  Infants, becaufe  they  are  not  capable  of  refent*- 
incr  it  :  yet  they  don*t  confuicr  that  Chrift  refents  it,who 
has  ftriifly  caution'd  his  Difciples  againft  offending  ot* 
dv.-fpiring  iiny  Sort  of  his /////<?  Ones^  Match.  18.  10.  I'h'e 
Angels  refent  ir,~ior  (as  our  Saviour  there  faith)  Their 
Angels  do  akvays  tehcid  the  Face  of  my  Father  ivhich  is 
in  Heaven.  Anil  our  heavenly  Father  refents  it  ;  for  it  is 
noci'/i  IFiil^  that  om  of  tbeje  littU  Ones  fjculd fen ffO^  /•  H* 

nuf 


Chap.  V.  of  Infant- Sapdfm*  ^2;^ 

nor  that  any  Thing  Hiould  be  faid  or  done  prejudicial  to 
thelrSalvacion.  (2J  He  fiiys,  {ibid.)  "  By  theDifcjples  of 
Chrid  are  meant  his  Apollles."  But  the  Dilcipfes  of 
Chrill  could  not  be  meant  by  thefe  little  Onts :  for  they 
were  then  contending  for  the  Preheminence  in  hisKing- 
,dom,and  thereby  dilcovered  a  Temper  of  Mind  moll  op- 
pofite  to  that  of  iittleChildren  ;  which  our  Lord  rebukes, 
by  fetting  a  httle  Child  in  the  midft  of  them,  as  an  Em- 
blem of  Humility  and  Meeknefs, which  he  makes  the  ne- 
GefTary  Qualification  of  the  Subjeds  of  his  Kingdom* 
Therefore  the  Difciples  are  here  manifeflly  diftinguinied 
from  thefe  little  Ones,  both  by  the  afpiring  Diipofition  at 
that  Time  prevailing  in  them  ;  which  made  th(  m  unlike 
to  IittleChildren  \  and  by  theSimiiitude  taken  from  fuch^ 
which  ourLord  makes  ufe  of  for  theirCorredtion.  (3.jHe 
fays  moreover,  P.  72.  "  Admitting  that  Infants  in  Ag,c 
."  have  thePrinciple  of  Faith  in  them, yet  this  vi^ould  not 
*'  juilify  their  Claim  to  Baptifm  ;  — fince  ac^ualFaithand 
"  aProfeiTion  of  it  is  a  neceifaryPre-requifite  toBapcifm..'* 
,Anf.  Though  adual  Faith  and  a  Proleflion  of  it  be  a  ne- 
ceifary  Pre-requifite  in  all  adult  Perfons,  who, are  bro*C 
up  in  other  diiferent  Religions,  Jews  and  Heathens, 
in  order  to  their  being  entred  into  the  Chriftian 
Religion  by  Baptifm  •,  fuch  as  his  Inilance  of  the^/ZV^- 
pan  Eunuch,  A61.8.  32.  yet  fuch  adual  Faith  and  Pro- 
feilion  is  no  where  in  the  New-Teflament  pre  required 
to  the  Baptifm  of  Children  born  of  baptifed  Chrilbans  : 
And  it  is  obfervable^  there  is  no  Infbance  or  Example  in 
all  theNew-Teftament,  of  any  one  born  of  fuch  Chrillian 
Parents,  who  was  left  unbaptized  in  Infancy,  and  aftcr- 
,  wards  upon  the  ProfefTion  of  his  Faith  baptized.  (4.)He 
is  greatly  miftaken,  if  he  thinks  thePaedobaptiftsare  fny 
of  owning,  tbatFaith  inChrift  is  pre  required  inBaptifm, 
when  he  obferves,  that  the  Writer  otihcDialogne  ''feems 
£onfciou5  of  it  to  himfelf",  and  fancies  that  he  had  no 
other  Way  of  getting  rid  of  the  Ohje6tion  taken  thence, 
againft  Infant-Baptifm,  than  by  fuppofing  "  that  Infants 
;hayG  Faiih/*  For  taking  Faith  even  in  his  Scnfe,  for 
A  a  2  aduai 


35^         ^  "Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.  V. 

actual  Faith,  and  a  Profeffion  of  it,  the  Pa^dobaptifts  o- 
pe Illy  protefs  it  as  their  Opinion  and  Belief,that  it  is  pre- 
rtquir'd  to  Baptifm  j  and  in  their  Pradice  as  flrenuoufly 
infiit  upon  it  as  any  of  their  Adverfaries,  fo  far  as  the 
Scripture  warrants  and  requires  it,  that  is,from  all  unbap- 
lized  acuk  Perfons  y  becaufe  luch  a  Faith  is  neceflary  to 
bring  thenn  into  the  Covenant  of  Chrifb  under  theGoipel- 
pel  IJifpenlation,  which  gives  them  a  Right  to  Baptifm. 
And  if  their  Infants  be  denied  to  have  fuch  Faith,  they 
are  at  no  Lofs  tor  Proof  of  their  Title  to  Baptifm,fo  long 
as  they  are  able  to  prove  them  comprehended  in  theCo- 
venant  with  their  believingParents  •,  and  inConfequencc 
thereof  to  have  an  equal  Right  with  them  to  Chriftian 
Baptifm.  However,  upon  the  Suppofition  here  made, 
that  Chrift  fpeaks  of  little  Ones  in  Age,  that  believe  in 
hiiriy  it  may  ierve  at  leaft  as  anArgument  ad  Hominem^^ox 
the  Conviction  of  the  Antip^dobaptifts,  who  make  this 
their  great  Objedion  againft  the  baptizingof  Infants,that 
Faith  IS  pre  requir'd  thereunto.  For  if  by  theLaw  ofChrifl 
all  Believers  are  to  be  baptized  •,  and  if  by  this  plain 
Teftimonyof  his,  the  little  Children  of  bis  believing  con- 
federate People  are  to  be  accounted  fuch  as  believe  in  him, 
they  ought  then  tobe  baptized  asBelievers  inChrifl.  And 
'there  is  no  Ground  or  Warrant  here  for  diftinguifhing 
Faith  into  the  Habit, and  theA6ting  of  it :  for  thisDiftin- 
dion  makes  no  Difference  with  Refped  to  thePrivileges, 
Faith  may  be  faid  to  give  a  Title  to,  for  he  that  hath 
Faith  in  theFlabit  orPrinciple  of  it  •,  and  he  that  hath  ic 
in  the  Exercife  or  Acting  of  it, have  both  of  them  preci- 
CMS  Faith.  2  Pet.  i.i.  Like  precious  Faith  •,  becaufe  it  in- 
titles  all  that  have  obtained  it,to  like  precious  Privileges 
in  {he  Covenant  of  Chrift.  (5.)  His  fifth  Objection, 
viz.  "  Either  all  Infants  have  Faich,  or  only  feme",  has 
been  anfweied  above  The  Declaration  &  Teftimony  of 
our  Saviour  fbiticiently  warrants  our  palling  this  charita- 
blejudgment  on  all  Inlanti-,  ind^fiiitely^v^ho  are  prefented 
to  Chnlt  by, rheir  pious  Parens,  that  they  have  Faith 
according  to  their  Infant  CapacitieSj  that  is,  the  Grace  gI 

Regcnera- 


Chap.  V.  of  Infant-Baptirm.  s^^'] 

Regeneration, without  which  they  are  uncapable  Subjeds 
of  the  Kingdom  of  God  ;  tho'  all,  univerfally yxmy  ^ot  be 
affirmed  to  be  theSubjeds  of  this  favingGrace.  And  this 
is  aGround  of  Baptifm,no  more  precarious  than  thefup- 
pofed  Faith  of  adult  Profeflbrs.  For  who  can  afTure  Dr. 
G/7/,  that  all  fuch  Profeflbrs  do  "truly  &  adually  believe 
in  Chrift  ?"  or  if  they  do,  '*  how  comes  k  to  pals  that  fp 
many  of  them"  afterwards  prove  no  better  Men  ^han 
their  Neighbours  ?  — I  come  now, 

IV.  To  make  fomeRemarks  on  his  Exceptions  againli 
anotherText  cited  in  the  Dialogue^  which  is  that  remarks 
able  one  in  i  Cor.  7.  14.  For  the  unbelieving  Hufoandts 
fan^iffd  by  the  iVife^  and  the  unbelieving  Wife  isfanifijyd 
by  the  Hujband  :  Elfe  were  your  Children  unclean^  but  nowi 
are  they  Holy,  This  Text  has  been  refer'd  to  more  than 
once  already,  for  Proof  of  the  Covenant-Intered  •  of  thq 
Children  ot  Believers,  and  their  Title  to  Baptifm  ;  and 
it  ftill  appears,after  the  moft  deliberate  &  impartial  En-i. 
quiry,  notwithftandmg  all  that  has  been  faid  againft  ir,- 
to  be  a  good  and  validproof.  To  clear  up  &  eftablifh  the 
SenfeofthefeWords,we  need  only  to  enquire  into  the  true 
Scriptural  Import &Signification  of  theTermZ/^/y  in  the 
latter  Claufe.  The  Word  in  theOld-Teftament,  contopt- 
ly  fignifies  (according  to  its  Notation  in  the  Hebrew 
Language)  that  which  is  fet  apart ^  fi:ted  ^  prepard  for 
fome  fpecial  eminent  Ufe  orPurpofe-,  chiefly  that  which  is 
defign'd  to  fome  religiousUfe,&hath  a  fpecial  Relation  to 
God,  his  Service  and  Worfhip.  Being  applied  toPerfons 
or  Things,  it-imports  a  Difcrimination,  or  Separation  of 
them  from  common  to  facred  Ufes,  their  fpecialRelation 
to  God,  and  his  fpecial  Propriety  in  them  above  all  other 
Perfons  or  Things.  With  Regard  to  Men,  it  fignifies 
thefe  twoThings  in  general,  (i.)  A  vifiblerelativcHoli- 
nefs,  or  a  vifible  Separation  from  theReft  of  Mankind, and 
peculiar  Relation  to  God  as  his  yifible  People  in  Cove- 
nant, and  in  whom  he  hath  a  fpecial  Interelt  orPropriety 
above  all  other  People.  Hence  the  whole  People  of 
I/rael  have  this  Denomination  of  Holy  given  them,foleiy 
A  a  3  en 


35^  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Ri^ht         Chap.  ¥♦ 

on  the  Accour.t  of  their  being  taken  into  Covenant  with 
Goti,  and  by  this  Relation  difcriniinated  from  all  other- 
People.  This  is  vtrj  ^pldAViUomExod,  19.5,6.  aibrecired^ 
and  ftom  Lev.  20.  24. —  I  am  the  J^ordycur  God^  which 
kdve^fepar  at  cd  yctt  frorn  ether  People,  f.  26.  And  ye  pall  be^ 
hcly'untome  \for  I  thtLord  am  holy^&  have  feparatedym 
fich  ctberBecple^th'at  ye  fbeuld  be  mine.  *Twere  tedious  to 
recitfe  all  the  places  #liere  the  whole  Nation  of  Ifrael  ^re- 
tei  m'd  Holy.,  as  they  v/ere  vifibly  feparared  from  other 
Nations',  and  taken  into  vifible  federal  Rehltion  to  the 
true  God  as  his  peculiar  People,  diftinguilh'd  &  dignifi- 
ed by  fpecial  Ordinances  and  Privileges.  So  that  all  the 
Members  of  theChurch  of  Ifrael  werfe  vifibly  holy,  being 
5n  Covenant  with  God,  Children  as  well  as  grownPeople, 
iand  are  therefore  filled  the  holy  Seed  in  Diftindion  fi-dm 
the  Heathen  Nations  about  therp.  Ezra  ^.2.  Though 
perhaps,but  few  comparatively  were  inwardly  fandiji'ed. 
(2.)  It  figniiies  a  real  inherent  Hohnefs,  or  an  inward 
Pifpofition  anfwering  the  outward  vifible  Separaiion  and 
Covenant-Dedication  to  God, and  confining  in  a  prevail- 
ing Inclination  and  Tendency  of  the  Mind  &  Pleart  to- 
wards God,  as  their  laftEnd  and  chief  Good  ;  and  is  ef- 
feded  by  theGrace  of  the  holy  Spirit j  the  Author  of  our 
Sandification.  The  Subjeds  of  the  former  Kind  ol  Ho- 
Jineft  are  oppofed  to  Infidels  and  Aliens  from  theChurch 
and  Covenant  of  God.  Ifai.  52.  i.  The  Subjeds  of  the 
latter  are  oppofed  to  fuch  even  in  the  viiible  Church, 
as  are  dellitute  ot  the  Spirit  of  Grace,  and  live  in  reign- 
ing Sins  andLufts.  1  Cor.  7.  34.  i  Pp.  i.  14,  16.  Rev. 
22.  II.  And  as  both  vifible  and  real  Plolinefs  are  often 
exprefs'd  in  Scripture  byCleannefs  and  Purity,  fo  the  op- 
pofiteUnholinefs  is  ascomrnonlyterm'dUncleannefs.Lev. 
16.10.  Tl  hat  you  may  putDifference  between  holy  &'  unholy^ 
and  between  unclean  and  clean.  The  fame  Terms  occur  in 
^cclef  9r  2.  y//.  I.  15.  and  in  many  otherTexts  :  which 
may  account  for  the  Oppofition  between  holy  and  unclean 
in  the  Text  under  Confideration.  Novv  there  are  two  Ex^ 
pcfuions  of  thefe  Words  ot^  the  ApofUe  ( — Elfe  were  your 
i     ■  '  Children 


Chap.  V.  of  Infant-Baptlfm.  ^  35:5, 

Children  unclean^hut  now  are  they  holy)  far  wide  of  hisSenfe. 
The  firft  is,  that  of  thofe  who  underftand  by  Holinefs  of 
their  Children,  an  inherent  Quality^  or  inward  real  Ho- 
linefs, in  Oppofition  to  Sin  and  Vice.      But  this  can't  be 
the  Meaning.      For   (i.)    It  does  not  tollow  from  the 
Faith  &  Holinefs  of  either  or  both  the  Parents,thac  their 
Children  are  holy,  becaufe  born   of  holy   Parents  ;  for 
though  external  Privileges  &  Honours  may  be  tranfmit- 
ted  from  Parents  to  their  Children,  yet  inherent  gracious 
Difpoficions  are  not  :  The  moral  Qualifications  of  Wif- 
dom,  Juftice,  and  Sobriety,are  not  always  propagated  or 
derived  from  Parents  to  Children  by  naturalGeneration  ; 
Much  lefs  true  Holinefs,  which  is  the  Eifefl  of  fuperna- 
tural  Grace.    (2.)  Becaufe  their  Children  are  faid  to  be 
boly^  in  Oppofition  to  others  that  are  unclean  •,  but  if  true 
Holinefs  be  here  meaat,  it  mull  be  underibood  in  Oppo- 
fition to  the   common  Pollution  of  the  human  Nature, 
by  which  all  the  natural  Race  of  Adam  are  defiled  -,   and; 
fo  theChildren  born  of  Parents  within  theChurch,as  well. 
as  of  thole  without,  are  unclean.  For  hozv  can  he  be  clean^ 
that  is  born  of  a  IVoman  F  Job.  25.  4. — ^3.)  This  Sehfc 
of  theApoftle's Words  would  not  have  been  a  facisfailory 
Anfwer  to  (what  may  be  reafonably  fuppos*d  to  bej  the 
Scruple  of  the  Chriftians  at  Corinth  •,  v/hich  cannot  be 
fuppos'd  to  be.  Whether  their  Children  were  real'y,  or 
yifibly  holy  ?  But  when  one.  of  the  Parents  was  an  Infidel 
orHeathen,and  the  other  a  Believer,a  Chriilian,  or  Saint, 
whether  their  Children  were  to  be  reputed  a?  Heaihens, 
or  reckon'd  among   Chriilians,  or  vifible  Saints  (as  the 
Word  Holy  fignifies,and  is  often  render'd  Saints,  as  i  Cor* 
1.2.)  whether  they  were  to  be  efteemed  within  the  Verge 
of.  the    Chriilian  Covenant,    (and  fo    federally   holy) 
or  out  of  it  among  the  unclean   Gentiles  r  Now  fup- 
pofing  this  to  have  bce(\  theQue(lion,theApo{lle's  Words 
are  a  pertinent  and  full   Anfwer  to  it,  if  v/e  underfland 
him  to  intend  by  theWord  Holy,  only,  a  vifible  Covenant- 
HoUnefs  •,  that  if  either  of  the  Parents  were  a  Believer, 
and  fo  in  Covenant  with  God,  the. Children  were  net  t<,' 

A  a  4  ■        '        '^    ■  hr 


5^0  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  V. 

be  caft  out  as  unclean,  but  reckon'd  asFederates  together 
with  the  believing  Parent,  and  in  Regard  of  their  federal 
Relation  toGod  vifibly  holy.  But  5^fW/y,AnotherExpo- 
fition  of  thefe  Words,  that  comes  as  far  below  the  true 
Meaning  of  the  Apoftle,  as  the  former  carried  it  too  high, 
is  that  ot  thofe  who  underftand  a  matrimonial  Holinefs  here 
intended  ;  as  if  the  Apoftle  had  faid,  Elje  were  your  Chil- 
dren Baftards,  but  now  they  are  Legitimate.  Which 
fuch  a  St(\^t  of  the  Word  Holy  as  is  utterly  un- 
known to  th€  facred  Pages.  This  Senfe  is  embraced  by 
Dr.Gill^  as  it  is  generally  by  the  Antipaedobaptifts  j  \ 
Senfe,that  favours  ftrong  of  Popery, as  it  favours  theNo- 
tion  of  Marriage  being  a  Sacrament.  The  Confutation 
of  this  abfurd  Tenet,  I  fhall  referve  to  a  followingHeado 
There  is  a  third  Interpretation,  which,  if  admitted, 
might  put  an  End  to  the  Controyerfy.  "Which  is  that  of 
thofe  wJio  underftand  the  V^ordfin^ifed  in  the  former 
Claufe,  to  fignify  baptized  (and  in  fucH  a  Senfe  it  is  very 
often  us'd  in  the  Writings  of  the  Fathers)  and  the  Word 
Holy  in  the  latter  Claufe  to  intend  Chriftians  baptized 
(and  it  is  certain  that  the  Denomination  oi Saints  or  Holy^ 
which  is  the  lame  Word  in  the  Original,  is  comrrionly 
given  in  the  New  Teftament  to  baptized  Chriftians  •,  as 
the  Infcription  of  moft  of  Paul\  Epiftles  to  theChurches 
v;itnefieth^  To  the  Saints  in  fuch  a  Place,  at  Corinth^  at 
Ephefus^zt  Philippi,&cc.  That  is,to  the  Churches  in  thofe 
Places, confifting  of  baptized  Chriftians)  and  fo  they  give 
iht  Senfe  •,  theApoftle  in  advifing  the  believing  Wife  or 
Huft^and  to  dwell  with  the  unbelievingYoke- Fellow, tells 
thern  for  their  Encouragement,  The  unbelieving  Hufband 
has  been  Jauolifed^  i.  e.  brought  over  to  the  ChriftianFaith 
and  Baptifm  by  the  believing  Wife  •,  fo  likewife  the  un« 
believing  Wife,  by  the  Hufband,  by  Means  of  their 
dwelling  together  in  co.njugal  Relation  •,  otherwife  (faich 
he)  your  Children  had  remained  in  Heathenifm,  unclean, 
but  now  they  are  brought  to  Baptifm,  and  fo  made 
Chriftians, or  vifible  Saints.  This  Interpretation  is  efpouf- 
t^  by  many,  particularlyDr, //^wwffW,  andD-r.^^/^who 
■  tell 


Chap.  V.  <?/ Infant-Baptifm.  361 

tell  us  that  the  ancient  Writers  generally  went  into  it. 
And  though  there  are  Tome  Realbns  to  fupport  it,  (  and 
therefore  I  objed  not  to  it  )  yet  I  prefer  the  commonly 
receivedSenre,whichisprefer'dby  many  found  Expo  fi  tors, 
becaufe  it  is  moil  conformable  to  the  Scripture-Dialed, 
who  underRand  their  Children  being  Holy^  in  the  fame 
Senfe  in  which  the  whole  vifible  Church  and  People  of 
I/rael  are  faid  to  be  an  holy  People,  The  holy  Seed^  &c.  by 
Vertue  of  their  federal  Relation  to  God  whereby  they 
were  discriminated  from  the  Heathen  Nations,  and  vifi- 
blyfeparated  to  theService  of  the  trueGod,as  his  peculiar 
People.  On  the  very  fame  Account,  I  have  fhewed,  the 
fameDenomination  is  given  to  theNew-Teftament-7/?^^/, 
the  vifibleChriitian  Church  -,  An  Holy  Nation^A  peculiar 
People.  I  Pet.  2.9.  This  then  is  the  true  and  plainScrip- 
ture-Notion  of  Plolinefs,  which  Dr.  Gill  looks  upon  as 
h  myflerious  a  Thing  ;  it  confifts,  I  fay,  in  a  Difcrimi- 
nation  from  what  is  common  and  unclean,  or  in  a  Sepa- 
ration from  the  Infidel- Heathen- World,  and  Dedication 
to  God,  and  peculiar  Relation  to  him  in  Covenant :  And 
this  either  external  and  vifibJe,  common  to  all  the  Mem- 
bers of  the  vifibleChurchjwho  are  therefore  vifibiy  holy; 
or  interna]  and  real,  proper  to  thofe  in  the  vlfible  Church 
who  are  truly  regenerated  &  fandlified  by  theHolySpirit. 
So  the  Senfe  rum^  The  unbelieving  Hufl?and  is  fanofified  by 
or  zothe  M/ifc^  being  a  Believer  (  admitting  the  Turn 
Dr.G/7/ gives  to  the  Greek  Prepolition  «;;,  rendring  it/(?) 
as  all  Things  are  pure  to  them  that  are  pure.  (Tit.  i .  •  1 5. ) 
And  all  Creatures,  Relations  and  Enjoyments, are  faid  to 
be  fan^lified  to  Believers  (i  Tim.  4.  4,  5,)  v/ho  have  a 
gracious  Covenant-Right  to  the  Creatures,&  ail  Things 
reftored  to  them  by  Chrid.  (i  Cor.  7,.  21,  22,  23.)  AH 
Things  are  for  their  Ufe  and  Benefit :  whatever  they  be 
in  their  own  Nature,  the  Believer  hath  a  lawful  and  holy 
Ufe  of  them.  So  the  unbelievingYoke-fellow  \^  fantltficd 
fo  far  as  concerns  the  believing  Party,  that  is,  for  lawful 
Cohabitation,  conjugal  Society,and  thePropagarion  of  an 
holy  Covenant  Seed  \  that  the  believing  Hufband   or 

Wife, 


3^2:  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  V. 

Wife  may  lawfully,  and  with  a  good  Confcience,  dwell 
with  the  unbelieving  Confort,  even  while  he  or  fhe  re- 
mains a  Heathen  ;  it  not  being  theDefign  of  Chriftianity 
to  duTolve  the  Bonds  of  any  civil  Relation  :  Elfe^  if  the 
believing  Party  could  not  with  a  good  Confcience  dwell 
with  the  Unbelieving,  but  they  ought  to  feparate,  then 
the  Children  born  ot  fuch  a  Marriage,  ought  to  be  put 
away  as  unclean,  as  HeathenifliChiidren  \  as  theCafe  was 
refoived  in  Ezras  Time,  according  to  the  jewifh  Law, 
Ezra. 10.  3. — But  now^  fince  the  Coming  ot  Chrill,  and 
the  national  Difference  is  abolifhed,  the  Chi]4ren  of  fuch 
Parents,  of  whom  the  one  is  a  Believer,  the  other  an 
Heathen,  are  to  be  accounted  Holy,  becaufe  fuch  Chil- 
dren are  taken  into  God's  Covenant,  with  the  believing 
Parent  ;  for  if  theRoot  be  holy,  fo  are  the  Branches.  Rom. 
II.  16.  When  the  Queftion  is.  Whether  fuch  Children 
aieto  bereckon'd  to  theBelieving,or  thelnfidel  Parent,aS; 
being  either  of  the  holy  Seed,  or  of  the  uncleanGentiles  ? 
the  abounding  Grace  of  the  New-Covenant  carries  it  for 
the  Believer  :  So  the  Apoilie  has  determined.  And  the 
Argument  hence  for  baptizing  the  Infants  of  Chriftians, 
is  as  itrong  as  if  it  were  ever  fo  manifeft,  that  the  Word 
//(^/yfigniiied  fuch  as  were  baptized ;  for  all  that  were 
vifibly  Holy,  being  in  Covenant  with  God,  all  vifible 
Saints  either  are,  or  ought  to  be  baptized.  What  Dr. 
Gill  has  to  object  againit  this  Argument,  is  as  follows  : 

(i.)  He  would  have  "  it  told  what  thefe  Covenant- 
*«  PriviLrges  are,  thatChildren  have  a  Claim  unto  by  vir- 
*'  tue  of  their  Covenant-Relation.  P.  73,  and  "  if  Bap^ 
*'  tifm  is -one  of  them,  that  muil  be  denied  (he  fays)  to 
*'  be  a  Covenant-Privilege."  But  for  what  Reafon  ? 
"  For  then  (he  fays)  all  the  Covenant-Ones  in  all  Ages 
*'  ought  to  have  enjoyed  it  ;    whereas   they   have  not.'* 

Let  us  try  the  P'orce  of  this  F^eafon,  the  Suppofition  it 
goes  upon,  is,  7'hat  can't  be  aCovenant-Privilege,whiGh 
ail  the  Covenant-Ones  have  not  enjoyed  in  all  Ages  : 
Hence  it  follows,  there  can  be  no  New-Covenant- Privi- 
leges :  But  was  not  the  Exhibition  ol  Chriif  in  theFlefh, 

and 


Chap.  V.  ^/ Infant- Baptifm.  363 

and  the  clear,  fpiritual,  and  heavenly  Difpenfatlon  of  the 
Gofpei  a  Covenant- Privilege  ?  Was  it  not  the  grearBlef- 
fing  prordifed  to  Abraham  r"  And  did  the  Covenant- Ones 
enjoy  it  in  all  Ages  ?  Did  not  Chrill  fay  to  his  Difciples, 
Macth.  13.1-6,17.  BhjJ'cd  are  your  Eyes^  for  they  jee^  and 
your  Ears,  for  they  hear  •,  for  verily  I  fay  uvJo  you^  that 
many  Prophets  and  r{^hteous  Men  have  defirtd  to  fee  thofe 
"Thingsu'kicb  ye  fee,  and  have  not  feen  them,  '&c  ?  And 
were  not  thefdPropht;ts&  righteousMen  Covenant-Ones  ? 
And  doth  not  the.  Apollle  fay  ('after  he  had  been.fpeak- 
jng  of  the  Covenant- Ones,the  Believers  of  theOld-'J'efta- 
nientJ  Heb.  II.  39,  40.  Thefe  received  fjot  the  Promifes  ; 
God  having  provided  fame  better  'Thing  for  us,  that  they 
ivithout  us  pould  not  be  made perfet^  ?  Was  not  Liberty 
horn  the  Burthenfom  Rites  of  the  Mofaic  Lav/  an  emi- 
nent Privilege  of  theNevv-Covenant  of  Chrill-  ?  Does  not 
Dr.  Gili  affirm-,  that  it  is  a  rich  Mercy  and  glorious  Privi- 
lege  oj  the  Gofpei,  to  be  delivered  from  the  unfuppcr table 
Toke  of  Circiimcifion  I  Pa.62.  And  was  this  enjoy 'd  by 
the  Covenant-Ones  in  ail  Ages  ?  Why  then  may  notBap- 
tifm  be  a  Privilege  of  the  Gofpei  Covenant,  tho'  but  a 
vifible  one  .''  But  fmce  the  Covenant  of  Grace  is, both  in 
the  Conftitution  and  Difpenfation  of  it.  Matter  of  free, 
arbitrary  Vouchfafement,  it  is  incumbent  on  Dr.  Gill,  in 
order  to  maintain  hi3Airertion,to  prove  that  theAlmighty 
has  any  where  tied  up  his  Hands  from  enlarging  or  add- 
ing to  the  Privileges  of  it.  "  We  have  feen  already  (he 
faysj  thatCovenant-Intereft  gives  noRight  to  any  poficive 
Inlfiturion, without  a  divineDiredion  •,  and  that  Ba[)tifm 
is  no  Seal  ot  the  Covenant."  P.  74.  And  we  have  now 
ktn  too,  on  what  weak  and  flighty  Grounds  fuch  Para- 
doxes are  buik,  and  how  eafiiy  they  are  ovcrthiown. 

(2.)  He  would  have  it  "-cold,  what  this  Covenant- 
Holinefs  is,  whether  real  .or  imaginary" /zVii.  I  ha^^e 
told  him  what  it  is ;  and  it  had  been  plainly  enough 
told  him  in  the  Dialoi^ue  •,  only  he  had  a  Mind  zo 
make  a  Myftery  of  it,  and  to  amufe&  perplex  the  Rea- 
der, by  fecking  a  Knot  in  a  Bulruih,  or  by  a  pretended 

'  Mifrakc 


364  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  Y. 

Miftake  o[  the  Meaning,  to  avoid  giving  a  diredAnfwer 
to  it.  It  is  fucli  a  Holinefs  as  is  intended,  when  the  whole 
Church  and  People  o{'  Ifrael  arc  called  hoiy^  Pfal.  50.  5, 
Gather  my  Saints  together  unto  we,  thofe  that  have  made  a 
Covenant  with  me  by  Sacrifice.  They  were  Saints,  holy, 
vifibly  fanditied  and  difcriminated  from  others,  and  let 
apart  for  God  in  their  coming  into  Covenant  with  him, 
by  the  Solemnity  of  Sacrifice.  It  confifts  in  a  vifible 
Difcrimination  from  the  Unclean  and  Profane  World, 
and  a  facred  Relation  to  God,as  his  vifibleCovenantPeo- 
pie,  as  has  been  laid.  And  this  is  a  real  Holinefs  ("as  op- 
pofed  to  imaginary)  confiding  in  a  real  vifibleTranfadli- 
on  of  the  Covenant  between  God  and  his  People  by  fo- 
lemn  Rites  and  Ordinances  :  Tho*  as  real  is  oppofed  to 
meervifible  or  reputed  Holinefs,it  is  not  rcal,which  con- 
firts  in  true  Santtitication  of  Heart  and  Life  :  'tis 
not  fuch  an  Holinefs  as  the  Covenant  requires  as  a 
Qualification  for  the  fpecial  fpiritual  BlefTings  and  Privi- 
leges of  it,  but  an  Holinefs  which  the  Covenant  in  the 
very  Nature  of  it  deriv«es  on  thofe  that  are  taken  into  it, 
or  come  under  the  Engagements  of  it.  It  is  a  vifible,  or 
(if  he  will)  a  reputed  Holiaefs,  which  qualifies  for  fuch 
a  vifible  Privilege  as  Baptifm.  "  But  fuch  an  Holinefs 
(he  faysj  can  never  'quahfy  for  a  New-Teftament  Ordi- 
nance." I  Anlwer,  ■  Pis  a  vifibleHolinefs,and  that  only 
[in  for 0  Eccleftce)  that  qualifies  for  the  Ordinances  of  the 
vifible  Church.  Can  Dr.  Gill  deny,  that  Perfons  pro- 
felTing  Dedication  to  God, or  Faith  ^  Repentance,  are  to 
be  reputed  holy  ?  And  if  they  have  no  other  than  fuch 
a  rcputedHolinefs  founded  in  a  credibleProfeflion  (which 
ought  to  fatisfy  a  Judgment  of  CharityJ)  can  he  deny  fuch 
Perfons  to  be  qualified  for  the  Ordinance  of  Baptifm  ? 
Real  inherent  Holinefs,  or  fandifyingGrace  in  the  Heart 
can  be  known  only  to  the  Pleart-fearching  God  ;  nor  is 
fuch  Knowlege  required  of  .hofc  whom  God  has  appoint- 
ed to  adminifler  the  Ordinance,  as  it  muft  have  been, 
if  true  Holinefs  in  Heart  were  made  a  neceflary  Quafifi- 
carion  for  Admiflion.  He  fays /(^/W.  ^'Whert  this  real  in- 
ward 


Chap.  V.  of  Infant- Baptifin.  2>^^ 

ward  Holinefs  appears,  fuch  have  an  undoubtedRight  to 
the  Ordinance  ol  Baptifm."  I  hope,Dr.  Gf/fs  Meaning  is, 
where  it  appears  to  a  charitable  Judgment  (which  is  the 
fame  Thing  with  a  reputed  HoHnefs)  otherwife  if  he  in- 
tends its  being  made  diilin61;iveJy  evident  in  the  Sight  of 
Men,  before  a  Perfon  can  have  a  Right  to  Baptifm,  he 
n^iuft  either  forbear  to  admit  any  more  Profelytes  to  his 
Mode  of  dipping,  or  pretend  to  the  Faculty  of  infallibly 
difcerning  Men's  Sincerity,  or  of  reading  the  Characters 
of  the  Law  ot  God  written  on  their  Hearts. 

(3.)  He  pretends  (ibid,)  that  "  Holinefs  appertaining 
to  the  Covenant  of  Grace  can  never  be  meant,  fince  it  is 
fuch  an  Holinefs  as  Unbelievers,  yea  asHeathens  are  faid 
to  have.'*  But  this  is  to  be  denied  :  For  if  the  unbelieving 
Hujband  v^tx^  fan5lified  to  God,in  the  proper  Senfe  of  the 
Word,  and  either  really  or  vifibly  brought  over  to  the 
Chriilian  Faith  &  Profeflion,  by  Means  of  his  believing 
Wife,  he  may  be  faid  to  be  made  holy,  but  not  to  be  the 
Subje6t  of  thisHolincfs  as  anUnbeliever  or  an  Heathen, 
but  as  a  Chriftian  Convert.  But  the  unbelieving  Party 
is  not  faid  to  be  fandlified  in  Relation  to  God,  but  only 
in  Relation  to  the  believing  Hufband  or  Wife.  ThePri- 
vilege  is  theBeliever's.  TheSandification  of  the  unbeliev- 
ing Hufband  or  Wife  relates  to  and  depends  on  the 
Faith  and  Holinefs  of  the  beiievingRelative  ;  it  imports 
no  Change  of  Nature  or  State  in  the  Heathen  Wife  or 
Flufband,  but  remaining  Heathen,  it  is  the  Privilege  of 
their  refpedive  believing  Yoke-Fellows,that  the  Relation 
is  fanditied  for  them,to  their  lawful  and  holy  Ufe  •,  that 
their  embracing  the  Chriftian  Religion  does  notdif- 
folve  the  Marriage-Relation,  but  fandifies  it  to  the 
Chriftian  Party  ;  that  they  might  enjoy  the  Comforts  of 
it  in  a  more  pure  and  holy  Manner,  though  it  be  not 
thus  fandified  to  the  Unbeliever.  It  is  therefore  a  grand 
Miftake  in  our  Author,to  affirm  that  "  their's  and  their 
Children's  Flolinefs  muft  be  of  the  fameKind  &  Nature." 
For  the  Words  imply  no  Hohnefs  at  all  in  the  unbeliev- 
ing Heathen  Parent,  any  more  than  in  Meats^  when  they 

are 


S^6         J  Defence  of  the  Divhe  Right  Chap.  V. 

are  faid  to  h^  fan^ified  to  them  that  believe,  i  Tim. 4.3, 5. 
'Tis  purely  wit]^  Regard  to  the  believing  Party,  and  as  a 
Privilege  accruing  to  hini  or  her  by  Faith  in  Chrifl,  that 
the  Apoftle  faith,  'J^be  uiibelieving  Hufband  or  Wife  is 
fandified  by,or  to,  the  beheving  Wile  or  Hufband.  But 
when  he  fpeaks  of  their  Children,  he  doth  not  fay,  their 
Children  are  fandified  by^  or  to  their  Parents  ;  hiM^they 
are  holy^  and  that  in  Oppofition  to  the  Children  of  the 
Heathen, the  unclean.  He  fpeaks  of  it  as  a  Privilege  thac 
terminates  in  their  Children,/i'^_y  ^r^  i^^/y,  not  in  Relation 
to  any  other  but  God  only,  who  challenges  a  Propriety  in 
them,  being  comprehended  in  his  holy  Covenant.  Thjs 
is  a  very  different  Manner  of  Exprefiion,  and  plainly  re- 
quires a  different  Interpretation  from  thac  in  the  former 
Claufe,  of  the  Sandification  of  the  unbelievingHufband, 
which  cannot  be  underflood  in  Relation  to  God,  nor  has 
he,being  anHeathen.fo  much  as  a  vifible  Coyenant-Ho- 
linefs,  but  in  Relation  only  to  the  beiievingWjie,  as  has 
been  obferv'd  therefore  the  fuppos'd  Holinefs  ,of  the  un- 
believing Parent,  and  that  of  theChildren,  are  of  a  very 
different  Nature  and  Kind.  And  this  one  Obfervation 
entirely  obviates,  and  overthrows, 

lA\s  fourth  Objection,  which  is  founded  on  this  mifla- 
ken  Suppofition,  that  the  Holinefs  of  the  unbelieving 
Parent,  and  that  of  the  Children,  of  whofe  Parents  one 
is  a  Believer,  is  the  fame,  and  thence  argues,  "  that  if 
"  Children  by  Virtue  of  this  Holinefs  have  a  Claim  to 
*'  Baptifm,  then  much  more  their  unbelieving  Parents 
"who  were  fa  ndi  lied  before  them."'^«/w.  The  unbe- 
lieving Hufband  be^ng  faid  to  be  fandified  by  the  believ- 
ing Wjfe,can't  be  underftood  to  import  his  deriving  any 
Holinefs  from  the  believing  Wife  (efpecially  while  he 
continues  unbelieving)  by  Virtue  whereof  he  can  i^y 
Claim  to  Baptifm.  Tho*,  it  may  be  granted,  that  he  is 
id  far  fan6tified  by  his  Relation  to  his  Chhllian  Wife, 
that  nothing  hinders  his  receiving  Baptifm,  but  wilful! 
Refulal  of  his  Confent  to  the  Chriftian  Covenant.  But  I 
have  already  fuff^cieatly  expiaia'4  ^^^5:  Phrafe.  The  Ho- 
linefs 


Chap.  V.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  367 

linefs  that  qualifies  for  Baptifm,  is  the  Prerogative  of  the 
^t^(\^  as  Terluilian  fpeaks.*  God's  Covenant  is  with  the 
Believer  and  his  Seed,  not  with  the  Behever  &  his  Hea- 
then Wife,  or  with  the  Heathen  Hufband.  How  far 
"  the  Holinefs  of  the  Children  depends  on  the  Sanclifi- 
*'  cation  of  the  unbelieving  Parent,'*  I  fnall  fnew  under 
the  next  Head. 

(5.)  He  proceeds  to  lay  down  his  own  Opinion  con- 
cerning the  Holinefs  here  fpoken  of  :    *'  Thefe  Words 
(he  fays)  are  to  be  underflood  of  a  matrimonial  Holi- 
nels."  This  Interpretation  has  been  before  rejeded  :  and 
I  fliall  now  give  the  Reafons  why  it  cannot  be  admitted. 
{i  )  Neither  the  ^Q\'Ajan5lified  in  the  former  Claufe, 
nor  the  Word  holy  in  the  latter,  do  ever  occur    in  this 
Senfe  in  Scripture.  Tho'  both  thefe  Words  are  moft  fre- 
quently ufed  therein,  and  applied  to  God,  to  Chrift,  to 
Men, and  to  otherThings  in  different  Senfes  •,  yet  are  no 
where   found    in    facred   Writ  to   have  fuch  a  Mean- 
ing as  that  the  oae  fhould  fignify  married^or  efpoufed,and 
the  other  legitimate.  Neither  theHebrev/Word  Kadajh  in 
I  any  of  its  Conjugations  ftho*  of  a  very  largeSlgnification) 
I  nor  the  Greek  Word  Hagiazo  that  afcfwtrs  it,  and  figni- 
fies  X.0  fan5lify.,  have  ever  fuch  a  Senfe  as  this  put  upon 
them  inScripture.  And  ourAuthor  might  be  confcious  of 
i  this,and  therefore  for  the  Support  of  his  Opinion,  has  re- 
I  courfe  to  the  Jewifh  Do6lors,  in  whofeWritings,it  feems, 
i  he  'hvi^'^Marriage  or  Efpakfal  exprefs'd  by  aW^ord  in  their 
Language,  which  fignifies  x.o [arMify^  and  he  produces  a 
large  Citation  from  the  Mifmia^   which  contains  the  tra- 
ditional Law  of  the  Jews,  wherein  (he  fays)  "  the  W^crd 
fancfify  is  ufed  no  lefs  than  ten  Times  for  marrying  or  ef^ 
foufin;/"  But  if  he  could  have  found  it   once   to  have 
that  Signification  in  the  riolyScriptures,  that  would  have 
been  of  more  Weight  and  Value,  than  if  he  had  found  it 
an  hundred  Times  in  the  Jewifh  Writings  of  laterTimes» 

fuch 

*  Apodolus  ex  fanclificato  alterutro  Sexu  San£lo3  procreari  ait ;  tzm, 
€x  Se minis  Fr<erogaii^-ja   (juaai  cx  inilituclonis  Dilcipiiiia.    Tcriull* 

♦De-A:;ir.;a. 


36$        A  Defence  ef  the  Divine  Right  Chap.V. 

fuch  as  the  Mifhna  is.  But  tho'  there  are  fame  Phrafes 
of  Scripture,  fome  proverbial  Speeches  and  the  Hke,  thaE 
more  rarely  occur,  which  may  be  illuftrated  by  the  Ufe 
of  tiie  Words  in  Rabbinical  Authors  :  Yet  when  a  Text 
is  fufficiently  clear,  of  it  felf,  and  befides  is  confirmed  by 
the  conftant  Ufe  of  the  Words  in  other  Scriptures, as  are 
the  Words  under  Confideration  *,  it  is  perfedlly  needlefs 
to  have  Recourfe  to  the  Writings  of  the  Rabbies^  which 
perhaps  may  rather  darken,  than  explain  theSenfe  :  And 
it  argues  a  defperate  Caufe,to  have  Need  of  fuch  a  Sup- 
port :  Nor  is  it  probable,  that  the  Apoftle  makes  Ufe  of 
Words  here  in  any  other  than  their  commonly  known 
Senfe  in  Scripture.  But  whatever  be  the  Meaning  of  the 
Word  San5iified^  the  main  Difpute  turns  upon  the  Mean- 
ing of  the  Word  Holy^  as  applied  to  the  Children  of  the 
Believer :  Does  that  mean  efpoufed too^  For  thatit  iliould 
mean  Legitimate^  he  cannot  prove  from  Scripture,  nor 
does  he  attempt  to  prove  it  from  any  Rabbinical  Autho- 
rities. But  if  Scripture- Authority  may  be  bed  vouch'd  ta 
explain  itfelf,  the  Cafe  plainly  appears  to  be  this.  The 
Corinthians  had  written  to  the  Apoftle,  for  his  Rcfoluti- 
on  of  fev^eral  Cafes  of  Confcie nee  ;  one  whereof  was  this 
{as  appears  by  his  Anfwer  to  it  from  /.  12.  to;^'.  17. — ) 
Whether  Marriage- Society  between  a  Believer  &  an  Un- 
believer, between  a  Chriilian  Profeilbr  and  an  Heathen, 
Ihould  be  continued,or  dififolved  ?  It  was  a  Cafe  that  fre- 
quently happened  in  thofe  prirnttive  Times  of  theGofpeJ, 
that  one  of  the  Partners  in  Marriage,  the  Hufband,  or 
Wife,  embrac'd  the  Chriilian  Faith,  while  the  oiher  re- 
main'd  an  Infidel ;  and  thcGround  of  the  forementioned 
Scruple  might  be  the  Jewifli  Law,  which  forbad  Marri- 
age with  the  Idolatrous  Heathen  •,  according  to  which 
Law,  it  was  refolved  in  Ezra's  Time,  that  the  Worlhip- 
pers  of  the  true  God,  called  the  Holy  6eed,\\ho  had  join'd 
in  Marriage  with  the  unclean  Gentiles,  fhould  put  away 
their  H^'iveSy  and  fuch  as  were  born  of  them,  Ezra  10.  3. 
The  Apoftle  refolves  theCafc  thus  -,  That  Marriage-So- 
ciety (hould  continue  between  the  Chriftian  &  the  Hea- 
then 


Chap.  V.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  2^9 

then, and  that  the  Chriftian  Hu (band, or  Wife,  fliould  not 
feparatefrom  the  Heathen  Wife,or  Hufband,  as  long  as 
the  Heathen  were  content  to  hve  with  the  Chriftian.  f, 
12,  13.  And  he  gives  this  Reafon,  >'.  14.  Fcrthcunbe- 
licvingHujhand^'is  fancfified  hj  the  (  behevi ng)  IVife^  8zc, 
Not  only  is  the  Marriage  lawful,  and  not  to  be  difTolved, 
as  the  Jewifh  Matches  with  Heathens  were  •,  but  more- 
over, the  Relation  is  fandlified  to  the  believing  Partner, 
(through  the  Faith  of  Chrift,)  to  whom  all  Things,  Per- 
fons,  and  Relations  ^r^^«r<f,   and  may  be  polTeiVd   and 
us'd  with   a  pure  Confcience  :  And   it  is  iandtiiied  by 
Means  of  theBeliever'sPrivilege  in  theCovenant  ofChriO:, 
to  the  Propagation  of  a  holy  Covenant-Illue.    El/e  (faith 
the  Apoftle  }  if  the  Cafe  ftood  as  ic  did   in  the  Days  of 
Ezra  and  Nebemiab^you  muft  not  only  be  feparated  from 
your  Inlidel  Heathen  Yoke-FellowSjyour  MarriageSo- 
ciety  with  them  being  unfandlified,  unclean  and  defiiincr 
to  you  (therefore  theSeparation  of  theHolySeed  is  called 
cleanfing  them  from    their  ftrange  Wives.  Neb.  13.  30  ) 
but  your  Children  alfo  muft  be  put  away,   as  not  beino- 
of  the  Holy  Seed,  but  as  the  unclean  Children  of  the  Gen- 
tiles ',  as  the  Cafe  was  then  determined,  Ezra  10.3.  Bui 
now  under  the  Difpenfacion  of  theGofpel(fince  thejewilh 
Inclofure  is  taken  down,  and  the  Gentiles  admitted  into 
the  vifible  Chriftian  Church,  who  before  were  efteemed 
unclean  -,  for  whofeAdmiffion  therefore  theApoftleP^/tr 
was  prepar'd  by  a  Vifion   from  Heaven,  which   taughc 
him  not  henceforth  to  call  theGentiles, Common  or  Un- 
clean,   being   to  be  received    to  the  Ordinances   of  the 
Chriftian  Church  inFellov/fliip  with  thejews,/fj?.  10  28.) 
Now  (faith  he)  your  Children  areHoly,  i.e.  vifiblyHoly, 
being  within  the  Church  and  Covenant,    and  appertain- 
ing to  the  Holy  Seed  ^  and  not  to  be  fhut  out  as  unclean. 
This  Interpretation  is'analogous  toScripture,and  we  need 
not  feek  elfewhere  for  the  Senfe  of  the  Text.  (2.)It  feems 
cvident,that  the  Holinefs  of  the  Children,  is  made  to  de- 
pend on  the  believing  Parent's  Privilege  and  Intereft   in 
she  Covenant ;  And  theSandiiication  of  the  unbelieving 

B  b  Partner, 


370  A  Defence  of  the  Bkine  Right  Chap.  V. 

Partner,  relates  only  to  theBelieving,as  aPrivilege  accru- 
ing to  him  or  her  thro'Faith  in  Chrilt.     And  in  thisSenfe 
it  is  granted, that  '.heSacdtificatlon  ot  the  unbelieving  Fa- 
rent  is  neceirary  'to  the  Holinefs  ot    the  Children  •,  for 
ii  the  Heathen  Yoke-fellow   were  as  muCh  unfandified 
and  unclean  to  the  Believer,  under  the  Gofpel,  as  under 
the  Jewiih  Peculiarity,  the  Children  would  not  be  holy, 
but  unclean.     But  what  a  poor  lame  Senfe  is  put   upon 
the  Apoftle's  Words, (according  toDr.GV//,  and  hisParty) 
]£  the  meaning  were  no  more,  than  that  the  uyihdieving 
liufhand  is  married  to  thelVife  \  and  thenjwho  rould  doubt 
it,  the  unbelieving  Wife   is  married  to  the  Hufband  ? 
Elfe^  i.e.  if  their  Parents  were  not  lawfully  married,  they 
might  eafily  conclude,  if  the  Apoftle  had  not  told  them, 
that  their  Childre?i  zvers  BaBards  -,  but  their  Parents  being 
married,  they  ^'Qr^Legitimate  \  what  great^Myilery  does 
the  Apoftle  reveal  to  them  in  all  this  ?  But  in  the  Senfe 
above  given,  he  declares  to  them  a  preciousGofpel-Truth 
and  Privilege,  that  the  National  Diflindion  of  Jews  and 
Gentiles,  as  of  clean  and  unclean,  is  now  taken  away  by 
Chrifi:  •,  fo  that    the  Children  born  of  Parents,   whereof 
one  is  a  Believer,   the  other  an  Infidel,  are  to  be  reputed 
as  of  the  Holy  Seed,  the  Marriage-Relation  and  Society 
being  fanclified  to  the  Believer.  (3.)  Taking  matrimo- 
nial Holinefs  to  be  here  intended,  this  could  not  remove 
the  Scruple  of  the  Corinthians  -,   they   knew  already,  as 
well  as  the  Apoif  le  could  tell  them,  that  they  vvere  law- 
fully married,  and  that  their  Children  born  in  fuch  Mar- 
riage, were  Legitimate  •,  this  was  not  their  Scruple,  but 
fuppofing  this,  the  Qiieftion  was.  Whether  one  of  the 
Farmers  continuing  in  Paganifm  &  Intidelity,   were  not 
a  Reafon  fufficient  tor  dilTolving  the  Marriage  ^.  Or  whe- 
ther, the  believingPartner  could  with  a  go  d  Confcience, 
and  without  Sin,  cohabit  with  fach  an  infidel  in  that  Re- 
lation ?  And  the  Apoftle's  Anfwer  in  the  Words,  as  they 
have  been  explained, is  dired,  perrinenc  and  fatisfactory  : 
Eut  if  we  underftandhim  fpcaking  of  a  matrimonialHo- 
linefs,  he  leHV(?s  the  main  Queilion  unrefolv'd.(4.jl1ieir 

Children 


Chap.  V.  of  Infant -Baptifm.  3^j' 

Children  are  faid  to  hzHoly^\x\  fuch  a  Senfe  as  is  oppos'd 
to  Unclean.  Now  the  Term  Unclean^  is  mod  commonly 
given  in  Scripture,  either  to  Heathens  without  the  viii- 
ble  Church,  and  Strangers  from  the  Covenant  ;  or  to 
thofe  in  the  viribleChurcb,who  v/ere  under  fome  ceremo- 
nial Pollution,  that  rendred  them  unfit  for  facred  Ordi- 
nances, or  under  the  guile  of  moral  Tfanfgrerrion  -,  but 
it  is  never  given  to  illegitimate  Children  ;  and  therefore 
the  Oppofition  between  the  Terms  of  Unclean  and  Holy^ 
makes  it  manifefl:  that  theHolinefs  of  Children  here  fpo* 
ken  of,  muft  intend  a  vifible  federal  Holincfs  &  Fitnefs 
for  the  Ordinances  of  the  Church,  as  far  as  their  Capaci- 
ties will  admit  :  And  it  need  not  be  repeated,  that  Bap- 
tifm  is  fuch  an  Ordinance  as  the  Infants  of  Believers  have 
this  Capacity  and  Fitnefs  for.  fLaftly.j  He  endeavours 
to  confirm  his  Opinion  by  fome  Authorities.  ^\Mjerom.^ 
who  is  one  of  his  Authors,  is  reprefented  Wj  GvQiius  {^\Vi 
his  Comment  on  the  Place jas  having. a  diRerentThought ; 
and  underltanding  their  Children  to  be  called  Holy^  for 
this  Reafon,  becaufe  they  were  Candidates  cf  the  Faith^ 
and  horn  and  educated  without  the  Defder/ients  cf  Idolatry. 
And  Mufculus  who  is  another.is  noted  for  being  finguiar 
in  this  Opinion  among  the  Reformed.  But  not  to  exa- 
mine the  Authors  he  refers  to,  only  by  giving  us  their 
Names,  how  lar  they  conceeded  to  his  Senfe,  and  with 
what  Views  and  Limitations ;  it  will  readily  be  granted 
to  Dr.  G/7,  that  this  is  no  new  or  finguiar  Fancy,  but 
had  been  ilarted  long  before  heWrote  •,  but  the  Queftion 
is,  What  Reafon  is  there  to  Support  it  ?  This  I  have 
never  feen.and  therefore  rejed  it  as  a  groundlefsConceir, 
for  the  Reafons  by  which  1  have  confirm'd  the  oppofice 
Interpretation. 

I  lliall  only  further  add, that  finceour  Author  hasfaii'd  of 
producing  anyAuthority  from  his/^^/^/'/'j,todetermme  the 
Meaning  of  the  Word  Holy,  which  is  the  main  Thing  in 
Qacilion  ;  I  ihall  endeavour  in  fome  Sort  to  fuply  thac 
Defet^\bya(^iotationiromDr.L/^^//<?i?/,ourEnglil}i./^^i'/^/, 
B  b  2  who 


472  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.  V, 

who  in  his  Exercirations  on  thisPafiage  obferves,*  That 
"  the  Apoftle's  Difcourfe  turns  not  upon  this  Hinge, 
"  nannely,  whether  a  Son  iprung  from  Parents,  whereof 
"  one  was  a  Chriftian,  the  other  a  Heathen,  be  a  Legiti- 
"  mate  Iffue,  but  whether  it  be  a  Chriftian  Iflue.  For  it 
*'  is  fufticiently  known, that  x.\\t^Q\'6(KedcJj3im)  (Hngioi) 
*'  holy^  is  frequently  taken  for  thofe  that  profefsChiiilia- 
"  nicy  :  and  fo  the  Word  {Kedujhah)  Holinefs  in  the 
"Talmudifts^  is  taking  in  a  largcSenfe."  And  he  quotes  fe- 
veral  Pafiages  from  the  l^almud ^wh'ich  agree  to  thisScnfe : 
it  fhali  fuffice  to  mention  but  one. 

[Jevamotb^Fol.  42.  i.]  "  yf «  Hup  and  and  Wife  being 
*'  made  Profelytes^are  feparated from  each  other  ninety DaySy 
^-^  that  Dijiin^fion  might  be  made  between  an  Iffue  born  in 
«■'  HoUnefsy  and  an  Ijfue  born  out  of  Holinefs"  From  this 
and  divers  other  hker  orms  of  Speech  inUfe  among  them, 
he  fhews  it  is  very  plain,  that  ^'  an  Offspring  born  out  of 
^^  Holinefs ^^N2i%  an  (Ditspringborn  while  the  Parents  were 
*'  yet  Heathens  :  within  Holinefs^  when  they  were  now 
"  made  Frofelytes.  In  the  fameSenfe  theApoftle,Your 
"  Children  are  born  in  Holinefs^  that  is,  within  Chriltia- 
*'  nity,  if  either  Father  or  Mother  be  Chrillian  ♦,  and  the 
*^,Children  themfelves  are  holy,  that  is,  Chrillians." 
And  he  obferves  iurther,that  "  ihcFIealhen  were  reckon'd 
*'  by  the  Jews  for  unclean,  and  fo  unclean  indeed,  that 
*'  they  could  not  contract  Uncleannefs,  no,  not  Irom  the 
"  moft  unclean  Thing,  a  Sepulchre.  Hence  Heathen 
*'  Children  were  to  them  [akatharta']  Unclean  *,  and  the 
**  Children  of  ]Qv^s,,[_Hagm^^Holy,  To  which  Senfe  very 
*'  well  kn' >wn  in  the  Nation,  theApoille  alludes  in  thefe 
*<-  Words."  Thus  he.  Whence  it  appears,thatwhatever 
Application  or  Ufe  the  Jewidi  Doctors  made  of  the  fore- 
going Ttrmyfanc/ifedy  yet  the  known  Ufe  of  the  Word 
holy  among  them,  as  opposed  to  unclean,  was  to  fignify  a 
Sratc  of  Profciytifm  to  the  true  Pvcligion  ;  perfedly  a- 
greable  to  the  Senfe  alrcddy  given  inOppofuion  to  a  ma- 
trimonial Holinefs. 

VrThc 
»  Hot.  Kebr.  &  Talmud,   m  Loc. 


Chap.  V.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  373 

V.  The  next  PalTage  produc'd  in  the  Dialogue  in  fa- 
vour of  Infant-Baptifm,  which  is  controverted  by  Dr. 
C///,  are  the  Words  of  Inftitution,Gr  the  Commiffion  our 
Lord  gave  his  Apoilles,  Mat.  28.19,20.  Go ye^anui  teach 
all  Nations^  baptizing  them  &c.  teaching  them  to  obferve 
allThings  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you.  Now  fup- 
pofing  Infants  Subjeds  capable  and  qualified  for  this  Or- 
dinance of  Baptifm,  according  to  the  Rule  of  the  Cove- 
nant, which  has  been  abundantly  prov'd,  thefe Words  of 
the  Commifiion  afford  as  clear  a  Warrant  for  their  Bap- 
tifm,  as  for  that  of  the  Adult.  To  this  Purpofe  let  me 
obferve, 

Firft.  That  theObje6t  to  v/hom  thisCommifTion  given 
by  our  Saviour  to  his  Apoilles  is  extended, is  indefinitely, 
or  rather  univerfally  exprefs'd  •,  all  Nations^  i.  e.  all  the 
Gentile  Nations,who  were  diftinguifhed  from,  &  oppos'd 
to  the  one  Nation  of  the  Jews,  to  which  the  Church  of 
God  had  been  for  a  long  Time  confined ;  and  the  Com- 
mifiion firit  given  to  the  Apoftles,  during  Chriil's  perfo- 
nal  Miniftry,  was  limitted  to  that  Nation,  Mat.  10.  5. 
Go  not  inio  the  IVay  of  the  Gentiles.  But  nov/  their  Com- 
mifTion  after  his  Refurredlon  is  enlarg'd,  and  not  only 
takes  off  the  Prohibition  and  Reftraint  they  were  under 
from  preaching  theGofpel  to  the  Gentiles,  but  authorizes 
and  impowers  them  to  perform  the  miniflerial  A6ls  af 
it  to  all  Nations^  to  bring  them  into  the  Church  of  God. 
And  if  but  one  Nation  were  entirely  difcipled  or  profe- 
lyted  to  Chrift,  as  the  CommifTion  fuppofes  itmight  be, 
that  one  Nation  would  have  been  (what  the  one  Nation  of 
the  Jews  had  ever  beenj  a  vifible  Church  of  God, includ- 
ing: liieir  Infant-Children,  which  were  ever  included  in 
the  Jewilh  Church.  And  the  aggregate  'Ytx\x\^Nations^ 
comprehends  every  Age  and  Sex,  Men  Women  &  Chil- 
dreii.  The  Apoflles  by  their  Miniflry  laid  a  Foundation 
foi  bringing  all  Nations  into  the  Church  &  Kingdom  of 
Chrift.  But  this  was  defigned  to  be  theWork  of  Time, 
and  not  fully  to  be  accompiillied  'till  the  Times  of  the 
fcventh  Trumpetjwhen  the  Nations  ^ad  Kingdoms  of  this 

B  b  J  mrld. 


374         A  "Defence  of  the  Divbie  Right  Chap.  V, 

Worlds  ihall  become  the  Kingdoms  of  our  Lord  and  of  his 
Chrijf,  Rev.  1 1.  15.  And  when  this  Time  (lull  come, 
when  whole  Nations  and  Kingdoms  ihall  become  fubject 
to  Chrill,  is  there  the  lead  Ground  for  the  Exception  of 
Infant  Children  ?  If  nor,  who  iliall  deny  them  the  ap- 
pointed Livery  of  his  Subjec5ls  ?  The  Principles  of  our 
Adverfariesjin  fhuttingChildren  out  of  the  vifibleChiircU 
cf  Chrift,  render  it  impofiible  that  the  Kingdoms  of  this 
World  Ihould  become  intirely  the  vifibleKingdomoi-  our 
Lord  Jefus.  For  do  not  Children,  or  fuch  as  are  in  the 
State  and  Capacity  of  Infants,  make  up  a  great  Part  of 
the  Kingdoms  of  this  World  ?  And  if  thefe  be  left 
out  of  the  Kingdom  of  Chrift,  they  mud  tall  to  the 
ICingdom  of  the  Devil  ;  and  fo  the  Devil  will  ftill  have 
a  great  Share,  near  Half  of  theKingdoms  of  this  World, 
when  Chrill's  Kingdom  fhali  be  moit  glorioufly  enlarged 
and  advanced.  And  fo  Nations  and  Kingdoms,asfuch, 
can  never  become  fubjed  toChrift  •,  contrary  to  theTenor 
of  Scripture  PropheGies,and  to  theln-ention  of  thisCom- 
niiOlon  lirlt  given  to  the  Apoftles,  to  difciple  &  baptize 
all  Nations  -,  which  by  the  Pre  fence  of  Chrifl  in  the  Ex- 
ecution of  it,  and  the  Power  of  his  Spirit, Pnall  be  made 
effedual  for  the  bringing  in  all  Nations  to  him  at  lad. 

Secondly,  Let  us  obferve  the  miniileri-il  Ads  diredteJ 
to  and  enjoined  in  thisCommifllon, which  are  thefe  three, 
(i)  T'^^^/w' or  difciple  all  Nations  %  (2)  Baptize  them-, 
(2)  'Teach  them  to  obferve  ike  I'he  Word  rendred  to 
teach  before  Baptifm  (it  is  commonly  obferved)  figniiies 
in  the  Original  to  difciple,  or  to  makeDilciples  or  Profe 
lytes  of  all  NatioiiS  :  This  is  acknowledged  by  the  moil 
learned  of  our  Adverfaries,  and  by  Dr.  Gill  particularly, 
who  builds  a  Ciiricifm  upon  it.  P.  79.  and  is  very  diffe- 
j-ent  irom  theWord  XQn(\\'ti  teaching  afterBaptiihi, which 
intends  a  fuller  Inilrudion  in  the  Dodrines  and  Laws  of 
Chrid,  to  be  obferved  by  the  baptized.  So  that  here  is 
nothing  in  tliis  Commiilion  that  virtually  or  implicitly 
debars  the  Infants  ol  Believers  from  Baptifm  •,  but  it 
gught  jud iy  to  be  confcrucd  as  an  Injundicn  to  baptize 

thcnij 


Chap.  V.  cf  Infant- Baptifm.  375 

them,  as  Part  of  the  Nations  that  fliould  be  difcipled  to 
Chrill  For  the  common  Objedtion  (1^/2;, Infants  cannot 
be  taught,  and  therefore  ought. not  to  be  baptized  ,  for 
Chrift'sCommand  \%^  teach  and  baptize.)  ThisObjedion, 
I  fay,is  remov'd  by  admitting  the  Word  teach  to  lignify, 
make  Difciples^  for  Infants  can  &  may  be  made  Difciples. 
Hence  I  argue,  that  the  Infants  of  Parents  profelyced  to 
Chriftianity  are  made  Difciples  of  Chrift,  together  with 
their  Parents,  and  therefore  ought  to  be  baptized  ;  for  all 
Difcples  ought  to  be  baptized.  'Tis  granted, that  adult 
Perfons  among  Jews  or  Heathens  could  be  no  Qtherwife 
made  Difciples  of  Chriil,  than  by  teaching  ;  therefore 
Cbrift  fent  out  his  Apoftles  to  preach  the  Gofpel  to  them  i 
But  upon  the  ParentsConverfion  &  Difciplefhip  toChrifl, 
their  Children,  asParts  of  themfelves,were  madeDilciples 
with  them,  and  as  fuch,  admitted  into  Chrifl's  School, 
and  taken  under  his  Difcipline,  with  their  Parents.  It 
can't  be  denied,  that  the  little  Children  of  Profelytes  to 
the  Jewifh  Religion,  were  efteemed  Profelytes,  or  which 
is  the  fame  Thing,  Difciples  of  Mofes^  and  obliged  to 
learn  and  obferve  the  Law  of  Mofes  \  and  the  fame  Rea  - 
ion  holds  under  the  Chriftian  Difpenfation,  why  the  little 
Chiiciren  of  Chriftian  Parents  fliould  be  received  as  Pro- 
felytes or  Difciples  of  Chrift,  becaufe,as  has  been  prov'd, 
the  Covenant  takes  in  the  Children  of  profelTingBelievers 
under  the  Gofpel.  Such  Infants  being  the  Difciples  of 
Chriil,  are  to  be  baptized  ;  for  the  minifterial  A6ls  of 
difcipling  and  baptizing,are  of  equal  Extent :  In  fo  much 
that  there  needed  no  exprefs  Dire6lion  for  the  baptizing 
of  the  Infants  of  Chriftians,  any  more  than  fuppofingour 
Saviour  had  continued  theUfe  of  Circumcifion  under  the 
New  Teilament,  and  had  faid  in  the  CommilTion  to  his 
Difciples^Gi?,  dijciple  the  Nations.,  circumcifing  them  \  there 
had  needed  any  exprefs  Direction  for  circumcifing  their 
Infant-Children  -,  for  who  can  make  anyDoubt,  but  that 
would  have  been  his  Meaning  ?  fince  it  was  thecommoa 
and  known  Cuilom  of  thejewifli  Church  tocircumcife  all 
theMalc  Infants  of  Profelytes.    And  fince  it  was  aCuftom 

B  b  4.  as 


$y6        J  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.  V. 

as  well  known  to  the  Jewifh  Nation,  to  baptize  alfo  all 
the  Infant- Children  of  Profelytes,  the  Apoftles  could  be 
as  little  at  a  Lofs,  whether  the  Children  of  Chriflian Pro- 
felytes were  to  be  baptiz'd,  as  on  Suppofition  Chrift  had 
order'd  Circumcifion  in  his  Commiflion,  they  would  be, 
whether  they  fliould  circunicife  them.  That  the  bap- 
tifing  of  Profelytes,  and  their  young  Children,  was  a 
known  and  ufual  Pradlice  among  the  Jews,  long  before 
the  Days  of  our  Saviour,  I  have  lliewed  from  the  Tefti- 
niony  of  divers  learned  Men,  well  fKill'd  in  the  Jewifh 
Cuftoms.  There  are  fuch  Sayings  as  thefe  (quoted  from 
their  ancient  Writings  by  Dr.  Lightfoot  f  and  others) 
^'  Hhey  baptize  a  little  Profelyte  according  to  the  Judgment 
of  the  Sanhedrim,  'That  is — 4f  he  be  deprived  of  his  Father^ 
and  his  Mother  brings  him  to  be  made  a  Profelyte. —  Ano- 
ther, If  with  a  Profelyte.^  his  Sons  and  his  Daughters  are 
made  Profelytes  alfo^  that  which  is  done  hy  their  Father^  re- 
dounds to  their  Good,"*^  Again,  '-'-  If  an  Ifraelite  tdike  a 
Gentile  Child^  or  find  a  Gentile  Infant^  and  baptize  him  in 
the  Name  of  a  Profelyte^  behold  he  is  a  Profelyte,^''  And 
divers  otheis  the  like.  Since  therefore  it  was  a  cuftomary 
and  known  Thing  among  the  Jews  to  admit  little  Chil- 
dren Profelytes  by  Baptifm,  even  all  the  Infants  of  pro- 
felyted  Parents,  as  well  as  to  circumcife  all  their  Males  ; 
it  is  no  wonder  at  all,  that  our  Lord, when  he  v/as  pleas'd 
to  take  this  Rue  of  Baptifm  for  his  New-Te(tament-Sa- 
crament  of  Initiation,  makes  no  exprefs  mention  of  In- 
fants in  his  CommiiTion  to  baptize  •,  feeing  it  might  be 
well  taken  for  granted,  that  the  known  Cuftom  of  the 
Jewilh  Church  in  admitting  Profelytes,  might  ferve  for  a 
plain  and  fufncient  Diredion  to  them  as  to  the  Subjeds- 
of  Baptifm.  It  might  rather  have  been  expedled,  that 
there  fhould  have  been  an  exprefsException  of  Infants  in 
the  CommilTion,  if  it  had  been  our  Saviour's  Mind,  that 
they  Ihould  not  be  baptized  :  But  there  being  no  fuch 
Exception  exprefs'd  or  implied,  the  Commiirion  fully 
empowers  and  warrants  the  baptizing  them,  no  iefs  than 

aduU 
f  Dr.  Ughffcjot,   Hor,  Hebr,  &  T&lmnd,  in  Matth    5   6. 


Chap.  V.  ef  Infant-Baptlfm.  377 

adult  Profelytes.     Now  Jet  ine  proceed  to  a  fewRemarks 
on  Dr.  G7//'s  Exception  to  this  Pailage. 

(i.)He  fays,  P. 79.  "  TheComminion  does  not  enjoin 
^'  the  baptizing  of  all  Nations,but  the  baptizing  of  fiich  as 
"  are  taught."  And  heendeavourstomake  this  appearl)y 
a  criticalObfervation  on  the  Words,  "chat  thcMafculine, 
Autous^them{\n  the\Vords/^^/>//2;/;7^//>^m)cannotbetheRe- 
Jative  to£//?;2^<?,  A^^//^;7J-, which  is  oftheNeuterGender,butto 
7kf<rz//:?^^/^j,Z)//a/>/^j,  which  is  fupposM  (he  fays)&  contained 
in  \.\\Q^ oxdMatheeteufate^'TeaLb  ox?nakeDifciples.'''  There- 
fore inConf'equence  of  thisCriticifm,  he  fhould  have  faid, 
the  Commiffion  does  not  enjoin  the  baptizing  of  all  Na- 
tions, but  of  fuch  as  are  made  Difciples.  Bur  I  Reply, 
(I.)  The  making  Difciples^  and  baptizing^  are  Miniller^al 
Ads  of  equal  Extent,  and  plainly  relate  to  all  Nations  : 
the  Commiffion  impowers  and  enjoins  the  iVlinifters  of 
Chrift  to  Difciple  all  Nations^  and  to  admit  them  into  the 
Chriftian  Church  by  Baptifm.  (2.)  His  Criticifm  is 
chargeable  with  two  Fauks.  It  is  groundlefs  and  ufelefs. 
{i.)  It  is  groundlefs  ;  for  a  Word  of  the  Neuter  Gender 
figri  ying  a  Perfon,  or  Perfons,  hath  often  in  the  Greek 
Lano-uaofe  a  Relative  of  the  Mafculine  Gender,  to  agree 
with  ir.  I'his  might  be  prov'd  by  a  Variety  of  Indances  -, 
I  fhall  produce  but  one,  which  is  pertinent  and  unexcep- 
tionable, it  is,  Rom.  2.  14.  For  -when  the  Gentiles ^Ethnet\ 
(the  very  Word  here  in  Matthew  rend  red  Nations)  which 
have  not  the  Laz<D^  do  by  Nature  the  "Things  contain  d  in  the 
Law\  Thefe,  Outoi  (a  Word  of  the  Mafculine  Gender, 
which  can  refer  to  Nothing  elfe  than  the  Word,  rcndred 
Gentiles^  which  is  oF  the  ^t\iitx)ka'ving  not  theLa-w^  arc  a 
Law  to  themfelves^  &c.  Therefore  we  fee  the  Propi  iecy 
of  the  Greek  Tongue  may  well  admit  the  Word  Them  in 
Matthew,  to  argree  with  all  Nations,  though  an  antece- 
dent of  the  Neuter  Gender  :  And  our  Saviour's  Words 
may  be  properly  rendred,  Go^  Dijciple^  and  baptize  all 
Nations.  So  that  this  Criticifm  is  not  well  founded. 
(2.)  It  is  ufelefs  and  impertinent  to  his  Purpofe.  For  al- 
lowing the  Word  Matbceteufate^io  iignify,  r/iahBifciplcSy 


37 §  A  Defence  cf  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  V. 

it  will  be  granted,  that  the  Nations  were  to  be  difciprd, 
or  made  Difciplesjin  Order  ro  their  being  baptized.  But 
this  can  avail  nothing  as  anObjedion  againfi:  the  Baptifm 
of  Chriftian- Infants,  unlcfs  it  cou'd  be  made  to  appear, 
that  there  is  no  other  Way  in  which  they  can  be  made 
Difciples^  or  Profelytes  to  ChriTi  (which  is  a  Word  much 
of  the  famelmport)  but  by  perfonal  Inftrudion  under  the 
MiniHiry  of  the  Word  ;  the  contrary  to  which  has  been 
proved.  Such  Indruclion  more  properly  belongs  to  thofe 
that  are  already  diicipl'd  a-nd  bapriz'd,  and  is  diredled  to 
in  the  CommilFion,  alter  Baptifm,  in  thefe  W^ords,  Teach- 
ing them  to  cbferve,  &c.     Hence, 

(2.)  His  next  Objeclion  falls  of  Courfe,  which  is,  *'  If 
*'  Infants  as  a  Part  of  ail  Nations,  were  to  be  baptiz'd, 
"  then  the  Infants  ot  Uealhens^  Turks^  and  Jews  ought 
**  to  be  baptized."  I  Reply,  that  it  is  certain  that  the 
CommifTion  of  our  Saviour  to  difciple  and  baptize,  ex- 
tends to  all  thefe  :  But  if  he  means,  that  then  while  they 
remain  Heathens^  Ttn'ks^  and  Je-ws^  their  Infants  ought  to 
he  baptized^  the  Confequence  is  to  be  denied  \  tor  he  can- 
not but  know,  that  the  Meaning  ot  the  Psdobaptifts  is, 
that  Infants,  as  Part  of  the  Nations  difcipPd  unto  Chrifi^ 
are  to  be  baptiz'd,  and  no:  Infants  of  unchriftaniz'd  Pa- 
gan Nations. 

(3O  Allowing  the  W^ords  fhou'd  be  rendred  Bifcipk 
all  Nations^  or  make  all  Nations  Bifciples^  he  proceeds  to 
tell  ws,  who  they  are,  that  are  '^  the  true  Difciples  of 
"  Chriil,  they  that  have  learned  the  W^ay  of  Lile  and 
*'  Salvation  by  him,  that  deny  themfelves, — Forfake  all, 
"  take  up  the  Crols  &  follow  him, —  bring  forth  much 
•"  Fruit,  love  one  another,  and  continue  in  the  Doctrine 
*'  of  Chrift."  Now  thefe  aie  not  the  Chara6ters  of  all 
who  are  vihbly  and  by  Profefiion  the  Difciples  of  Chriil, 
but  of  thofe  only  who  are  really  fuch  in  Ileart  &  Prac- 
tice. But  when  our  Author  adds,''  fuch  &  only  fuch  are 
*'  the  properSubjeds  of  Baptifm."  P.  80,  He  runs  inio 
a  manireft  Error,  and  may  be  convinced  of  it  by  Rcafoa 
and  Scripture  :  tor  if  diis  be  W\  if  none  but  die  true  Dif- 
ciples 


Chap.  V.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  il9 

cipies  of  Chrift,  if  none  but  thofe  who  have  thoroughly- 
learnt  &  pradis'd  the  Dodcrines  &  Duties  of  Chriftianity, 
rvre  to  be  admitted  as  the  proper  Subjeds  ot  Baptifm  : 
Tn-en,  fi.)  ^  folemn  publick  rrofeffion  of  the  Chriftian 
]<cligion,  how  credible  foever,  muft  be  fee  a  Side  as  in- 
f  hficicnt  to  give  a  Right  to  Baptifm.  'I^is  acknowleg'd 
that  a  profefied  Confent  to  thefeCharaders  tc  Fradifes  of 
ChrilVs  true  Difciples  is  required  in  Order  to  Bapciim. 
But  this  is  notenough,according  to  our  Author,  no,  they 
rnull  be  fuch  as  have  adiually  denied  themfe]ves,and  have 
fv-riaken  all  forChriil'sSake,and  have  brought  forth  much 
iM'uic,  &c.  betore  they  canbcbaptizViasDifciples  ofChrill. 
As  much  as  to  fay,  Chriil  can  have  no  vifible  Difciples, 
bill  thofe  only  who  are  really  liich  ;  which  deilroys  the 
Diifinction  between  the  vifibie  and  invifible  Church. 
(2  J  Upon  this  Principle,  no  meer  Man  could  ever  be 
empower'd  to  adminifter  this  Ordinance  ;  for  no  Man 
can  poffibly  infped  the  Heart,  or  make  a  difcriminating 
Judgment  of  the  Sincerity  of  Men's  Profefilon,  fo  as  to 
determine  v/ho  are  Difciples  indeed,  and  who  are  not. 
Nay,f  3.)  If  we  regard  only  thePradice  of  ProFelTors,  this 
Commiffion  to  the  Apoftles  to  baptize,  had  been  utterly 
impradicable,  if  fuch  and  only  fuch  as  have  learnt  and 
obferv'd  the  Dodrines  andLaws  of  Chrlfr,  and  continued 
therein,  are  the  proper  Subjects  of  Baptijm.  For  how 
could  the  Apufties  go  about  the  World  makingDifciples, 
and  baptizing  them,  if  they  could  admit  none  as  the  ])ro- 
per  Subjeds  o[  Baptifm,  but  fuch  as  gave  manifcfb  Evi- 
dence of  their  being  the  true  Difciples  of  Chrid,  by  the 
genuine  Fruits  proper  to  luch  Difciples,  and  by  contimiing 
in  the  Dooinne  of  Chrift^  to  their  Lives  End  ?  For,  if  at 
anyTime  of  their  Lives,  they  fhould  fall  from  th-  Doc- 
trine of  Chrili,  they  could  not  be  faid  to  continue  in  it. 
''  Was  it  dgreable  10  tiiis  Conimiliion,  and  \\\^  "^xwi^  of 
"  it"  fas  he  fays, /7/W.)  "That  Chnll  made  Difciples, 
**  and  then  baptized  them.  Job.  j^..  i."  i.e.  pievaii'd 
wi:h  many  by  hisPreacliing  to  become  his  Difciples,  who 
were  by  Baptifnj  initiated  inio  hi:iSclyjol,  as  Learnersj)f 

hi^ 


S^o  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Ch  ap.  V  ' 

his  Dodtrine.  But  had  they  learnt  his  perfedl  Dodrinc 
of  Life  and  Salvation  ?  How  then  came  they  afterwards 
to  be  offended  at  ic?  Jeh.  6.  60,  61.  Did  they  continue 
in  hisDodrine  ?  Wherefore  then  does  the  EvanQclift  tell 
us,  {:f.66,  of  the  fame  Chap.)  thar,Fr<?m  that  lime  many 
of  his  Bifciples  went  back^  and  walked  no  more  with  him  ? 
{^.)  How  unreafonable  and  abfurd  is  it  to  fuppofe  Men 
mud  have  learnt  &  made  Proficiency  in  the  Knowledge 
and  Pradice  of  Chriftianity,  before  they  are  by  the  Rules 
di  theirCommifrion,to  be  conftitutedLearners,orDifc]ples 
ofChrift?  But  ("5.) ThePradice  of  theApoftieSjas  records 
ed  in  facredHiR:ory,was  contrary  to  thisOpinion.  For  the 
Apoltles  and  firft  Minifters  oi  Chrift  {  who  it  feems  un^ 
derllood  their  CommiiTion  better  than  Dr.  Gill)  im.medi 
ately  baptized  thofe  v/hom  they  taught,  as  foon  as  the] 
profefs'd  their  Belief  in  Jefus,  as  the  Son  of  God,  an( 
their  Readinefs  to  embrace  hisDo6trine,  and  addifl  them 
felves  to  his  Religion,  without  waiting  to  fee  the  Fruiti 
and  Evidences  ot  their  being  true  Difciples  of  Chrifl.  '. 
might  indance  in  the  Converts  at  Pf/?/^r^,  who  v/en 
baptized  the  fiime  Day  in  which  the  Apoflle  preach'c 
that  Sermon  ;  by  which  they  were  converted.  Aul.  2.41; 
And  the  Ethiopian  Coa  vert,  who  upon  Philip's  preaching 
to  him  Jefus,  as  he  rode  in  his  Chariot  -,  and  coming  tc 
Water  was  immediately  baptized,  upon  his  profelFmg  nc 
more  than  his  Belief,  that  Jefus  is  the  Son  of  God^  Act. 8: 
37,  38.  In  likeManner,  tht  Jailor  at  Phiiippi^inihefami 
Hour  in  which  he  was  bro't  over  to  the  Faith  of  Jefus, 
by  the  preaching  of  Pauld^wl  Silas,  was  baptized Jle  anA 
all  His  Jiraightway^  A6t.  16.  ^^.  And  divers  other  In 
fiances  there  are,in  which  fo  little  Space  of  Time  pafs'c 
between  their  Preaching  and  Baptizing,  that  it  was  no 
poffible  to  explain  particularly  the  DoL:trines  of  Salvati 
on  -,  but  only  to  demonftrate  to  their  Hearers,  thatjefu! 
is  the  Son  of  God,  fentfrom  Heaven  to  be  the  Teachei 
andSaviour  of  Men-,  and  the  like  generalDodrines :  Anc 
thofe  v/ho  were  willing  to  yield  themfelves  to  his  In^ 
ftrudion,  were  admitted  as  Difciples  iiuo  his  School  bj 

■     Baptifn) 


CaAP.  V.  ^/ Infant-Baptlfm.  381 

Biptifm,  before  they  had  learnr,  but  in  Order  to  their 
Learning  the  Way  of  Life  and  Salvation  by  him  ;  much 
more  before  they  had  brought  forth  the  genuine  Fruits 
of  their  ProfefTion.  Yea/ome  were  baptized  by  theApo- 
ftles  and  firft  Preachers,  upon  fuch  a  general  Profeflion, 
who  were  fo  far  from  being  the  true  Difciples  of  Chrift, 
that  they  afterwards  turn'd  outHypocrites  andApoftates, 
fuch  as  Annanias  andSapbira,  and  Simm  Magiis^^  others. 
So  little  Weight  is  to  be  laid  on  our  Author's  ftrong 
AiTertion,  i\\2ii  fuch^and  only  fuch  ("as  are  true  Difciples  of 
Chrift)  are  the  pioper  Subjeds  of  Baptifm,  i.  e.  accord- 
ing to  the  Orders  given  in  the  CommifTion. 

(4.)  He  faults  the  ExprefTion  us'd  by  the  Writer  of 
the  Dialogue,  of  making  Men  Difciples  by  baptizing  them  ; 
and  fays  ( it?id.  )  "  They  are  two  diftindl  Adts —  They 
''  muftbe  firft  Difciples,  and  then  baptized."  But  can't 
thefe  two  Ways  of  Expreffion  be  eafily  reconcil'd  ?  In- 
fants are  virtually  or  fundamentally  madeDifciples,when 
their  Parents  are  profelyted  to  the  Religion  of  Chrift  ; 

I  and  as  fuch  are   to  be  baptized  :  And  Baptifm  is  their 

jfolemn  Initiation  into  Chrift's  School  ;  and  in  that  Ref- 
peel  too,  they  may  be  faid  properly  enough  to  be  made 

j  Difciples,  being  by  that  folemn  inftituted  Rite  enrolled 
among  the  Difciples  of  Chrift,  and  engag'd  to  learn  and 

I  praclife  the  Do6trines  and  Duties  of  his  Religion.  The 
Words  of  Jerom  (who  was  known  to  be  a  Psdobaptift) 

I  in  his  Comment  on  the  Place,  and  of  Athanaftns  too  (who 
does  little  more  than  repeat  the  Words  of  the  Commifli- 
on)  cited  by  Dr.  G?//,  are  no  more  than  any  Proteftant 
Pasdobaptift  would  fay,  in  giving  Inftru6lion  to  fome 
Mifiionaries  to  the  Indians  •,  '1  hat  they  fliould  take  Care 
that  their  Minds  be  truly  informed  of  the  general  Doct- 
rines of  Faith,  before  their  Bodies  receive  the  Sacrament  of 
Baptifm  :  Which  would  be  underftood  to  be  fo  far  from 
excluding  Infants  from  the  Participation  of  this  Sacra- 
ment, that  fuppofing  them  to  be  faithful  in  declaring  the 
true  Doclrine  of  the  Gofpel  ;  they  muft  tell  them,upon 
the  ProfefTion  of  their  Faith,  (  as  the  Apoftle  F^ier  did 

hi« 


if. 


382  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  V. 

his  Hearers  j  ThePromife  is  unto  you  and  to  yourChildren  • 
And  that  as  to  their  Warrant  andEncouragement  tootfer 
their  Children  alio  to  Baptilim,  and  being  thus  oirered, 
they  ought  to  baptize  them. 

(5.)  Our  Author  boggles  at  the  Word,  Difdple,  or  a 
Learner,2is  applied  tolniants  •,  and  fays  "  It  cannot  agree 
with  an  Intant,"  and  again,"They  cannot  beLearners 
of  ChriiljUnlefs  they  have  learned  ibmethingof  him — 
*'  They  ought  to  learn  fomeihing  of  hmiJcefore  they  are 
"  baptized  in  his  Name.  But  what  can  an  Infant  learn 
"  of  Chrift  ?  P.  81."  Here  I  cannot  but  obferve  how 
inaccurately,  and  improperly  it  is  faid,  They  cannot  be 
Learners  of  Chrift^  unlefs  they  have  learned  fomeihing  of 
him:  V^htrtdiS.  fofar  as  they  have  learned  of  Chrift,  and 
in  that  Kefped:,  they  cannot  be  faid  to  be  Learners  of 
him.  For  can  a  Man  with  any  Propriety  be  faid  to  be  a 
Learner  of  what  he  has  already  learnt  ?  But  on  the  o- 
ther  Hand,  Thofe  may  be  called  Difciples  or  Learners, 
who  have  learnt  Nothing  as  yet  -,  provided  they  give  up 
themfelves  to  a  certain  Peacher  to  be  in{lru.':!ed.  And 
Dr.  Lighijoot  obferves  *  "  'Phat  among  the  Jews,  and 
*'  alfo  with  us,  in  all  Nations  thofe  are  made  Difciples, 
*'  that  they  may  be  taught  •,"  and  ht  quotcs^Rak  Shah, 
Fol.  31.  concerning  an  Pleathen,  that  came  to  Hillel^^rA 
faid,  Make  me  a  Prcfelyie  (  or  Difciple  )  that  thou  maypfi 
teach  me.  So  our  Saviour  in  the  CommilTion  enjoins 
Teaching  ("in  the  properSenfe  of  the  Word)  of  thofe  that 
were  already  made  Difciples  and  baptized,  i'.  20.  And 
a  Child  put  to  fuch  a  Mader  to  be  taught,  is  enrol'd  a- 
mong  his  Difciples  or  Scholars,  before  he  has  learned 
one  LelTon.  And  why  may  not  an  Infant-Child  be  en-  . 
rol'd  in  the  Number  of  Chrid's  Difciples,  t'lo'  atprefenC 
uncapable  of  outward  teaching,  efpecially  fince  he  has 
another  Way  01  teaching,  which  none  can  reafonably,and 
upon  juft  Grounds  deny  Infants  to  be  capable  of.  'Tis 
promifcd,  Ifai.  54.  13.  All  thy  Children f}:)all  be  taught  of 
the  Lord,  If  the  Infants  of  jewiili  Profelytes  were  ad- 
mitted 

*  Hor,  Hebr,  and  Talm,  In  lUtth.  z%*  19*  I 


C  ^AP,  V.  ^/ Infant -Baptifm.  2^3 

nritred  Difciplcs  by  CirCumcifion,  and  oblig'd  to  leara 
and  keep  the  Law  of  Mofes -^  what  hinders  but  that  the 
Intantsof  Chriftian  Frofelyres  m-^y  be  initiated  into  the 
Chriilian  School  by  Bapnfm,  and  obhg'd  to  learn  and 
cbferve  theLaw  of  Chrill,  as  they  grow  up  to  aCapacity 
|for  it  ;  all  Arguments  from  Incapacity  are  hence  refut- 
ed trom  the  Cudom  of  the  Jewiih  Church,  founded  on 
divine  Iriflit  Jtion.  And  to  fay,  that  Infants  are  noWays 
able  to  learn,  is  contrary  to  Experience,  for  from  the 
Time  of  theirBirth,they  are  always  learrjing,as  theirCapa- 
cities  ripen,  and  they  very  early  leara  to  diltinguifh  be- 
tween Sights  and  Sounds,  and  to  know  their  Parents,  and 
to  give  Attention  at  Worfliip,  and  then  to  read,  and  to 
diftinguifli  between  Good  andEvil,  Truth  andFalfhood  ; 
and  many  Children  very  early  fuck  in  Principles  of  Re- 
ligion :  And  the  Scripture  obligeth  Chriftian  Parents  to 
deal  with  Children,  as  with  Diicipies  and  Learners. 
Prov.  2  2.  6.  Train  up  a  Child,  &c.  And  to  bring  them 
lip  under  the  Difcipline  and  Nurture  of  the  Lord  Jefus. 
Eph.  6.  4.  And  if  the  Thing  intended  by  the  Word,Dif- 
cipier  (  which  is  the  fame  in  the  Ufe  of  the  New-Tefta- 
ment  with  the  other  Terms  o\  Chri^ians^Saints,  Believers^ 
Church-Members,  fuch  as  belong  to  Chrift,  which  have 
have  been  verified  of  Infants  )  agrees  to  them  •,  it  is  not 
very  material  whether  the  Name  be  exprefly  given  them 
in  Scripture.  Yet  we  find  the  exprefs  Term,  Difciples^ 
ufed  in  Relation  to  fuch  as  were  Infants,  in  Ads  15.  10. 
Why  tempt  ye  God  to  put  a  Yoke  upon  the  Neck  of  the  Dif- 
dpies,  which  neither  our  Fathers  nor  zve  zvere  able  to  bear  ? 
Thofe  on  whofe  Neck  the  judaizing  Teachers  would 
have  had  the  Yoke  of  Circumcifion  put,  are  exprefly 
term'd  Difciples,  but  they  were  Infant-Children  chiefly, 
on  whofe  Neck  the  Yoke  of  Circumcifion  was  put,by  the 
priniitive  Inftitution  of  that  Rite,  and  by  the  Lav/  of 
Iviofes^  and  by  the  conllant  Ufage  of  the  Jewiih  Church. 
^  nd  if  this  Rite  had  been  continued  under  the  Gofpel, 
.^.ich  fomeJewifliChriftians  contended  for  ;  theYoke  had 
•ll  been  impofed  chiefiy  on  the  Neck  of  fuch  Infants  : 

and. 


384         ^  "Defence  ef  the  Divine  Right  Chap.V. 

and  thefe  in  the  Apoftle's  Language  and  Senfe  were 
Difciples,  Our  Author's  laft  Exception  lies  againft  this 
Text. 

(6.)  "  The  Text  in  /l5fs  15.  (he  fays)  is  not  to  be  un- 
*'  derftood  of  Infants,  but  adultPerfons  -,  even  converted 
*'  Gentiles,  who  beHeved  in  Chrift,&  were  hisDifciples." 
Of  which  no  other  Reafon  is  given, but  the  Authority  of 
bis  bare  Word  ;  which,  from  what  has  been  already  ob- 
ferved,  is  not  likely  to  go  iar  without  other  Proof.  As 
much  is  granted  in  the  Dialogue, 2iS  can  fairly  be  demand- 
edjwz.  '^That  there  were  fome  adult  Perfons  in  the  then 
"  prefent  State  of  Things,  upon  whofe  Neck  the  Jewilh 
*'  Teachers  would  have  laid  the  YokeofCircumcifion." 
Dial,  P.  25.  yet  'tis  added,  "  That  at  lead  the  greateft 
"  Part  of  thofe  Difciples  upon  whom  they  would  have 
*'  impofed  this  Yoke,  were  young  Children  :"  Which 
can't  reafonably  be  denied  •,  for  tho'  in  the  Cafe  fuppofed, 
the  firft  adult  Profelytes  from  Gentilifm  mufl  have  born 
thisYoke,yet  their  Infant  Children  muft  have  been  then, 
and  thenceforward,  from  Age  to  Age,the  Subjedls  of  it. 
The  Apoflle  argues  againfl  laying  this  Yoke  upon  fuch 
Difciples  as  were  Infants  ;  when  he  fays  of  it,  it  is  aToke 
which  neither  our  Fathers  nor  we  were  able  to  bear.  And 
it  is  evident,  that  the  Difciples  at  Jerufakm,  and  their 
Fathers  up  to  theDays  of  Abraham  had  it  laid  upon  them 
only,or  chiefly  in  theirlnfant- Age.  But  thac  which  puts 
the  Matter  out  of  all  Doubt,is  theReport  which  thejews 
zxjerujalem  had  heard  concerning  Paul,  that  he  taught  all 
the  Jews  that  were  among  theG entiles — that  they  ought  not 
to  circurncife  their  Childreny  Adi.  21.21.  Which  Report, 
there  can  be  no  doubt,  had  its  Rife  from  the  Do6lrine  of 
that  Apoflle,  purfuant  to  the  Decree  at  Jerufalem^  that 
this  Burden  fhould  not  be  laid  on  the  Gentile  Converts, 
and  confequently  they  ought  not  to  circumcife  their  Chil- 
dren^ which  otherwife  they  had  been  obliged  to  do. 
Whence  it  appears,  that  the  young  Children,  whether  of 
Jewifli  Chriftians,  or  of  Gentile  Converts  were  elleemed 
and  admitted  in  the  Chriftian  Church, asDifciples  or  Pro- 
felytes 5 


Chap.  V.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  ^S^ 

felytes  ;  and  the  latter  efpecially,  fuch  DifGiples  as  were 
exempted  from  theYoke  of  Circurncifion.  For  the  fame 
Perfoiis  who  were  exempte'd  from  this  Yoke,  were  thofe 
.on  whom  {hsjudaizers  would  have  impos'd  ic,underthe 
Denomination  of  Difciples  ;  but  that  thefe  were  youno- 
Children,  we  plainly  learn  from  the  Paff-.ge  lafi  cited. 

VI.   Our  Author  goes  on  to  make  fome  Exceptions  to 
thofe  Paffages   in  the  New-Tellament,  wherein  it  is  re- 
corded,  that  whole  Houiliolds    were  baptized  upon  the 
Convcrfion  of  theParents,orHeads  ofthen],to  heChriftiaa 
Faith  i  aliedg'd  in  theZ)i^%«^,tofh€w  how  theApollles 
underftood  their  CommiiTion  by  their  Pradice  ;  fuch  as 
Lydia^  and  her  Houlliold,  yft"/.  16.15.  ^^^  J^iloJ*?  ^^^  all 
that  were  his,  /»  33.  and    the  Houihold  of  Stephamis. 
I  Cor  I.  i6,  'Tis  but  little  he  has  reply  to  them,  and  that 
little  is  impertinent,  (i.)  He  rays,P.8  2.  ''  Seeing  the  un- 
*'  derftandlngof  ourSaviour'sMeaning  in  theCommiffion 
*'  depends  on  thefe  In  (lances  of  Baptifm,  and  fo  the  War- 
*'  rant  for  b^.ptizingInfants,theP3sdobaptifts  ought  tobe 
'*  furethere  v/erclnfants  in  thefeFamilies,&t'hat  they  were 
^*  baptized, or  otherwife  they  mufb  baptize  them^at  moil;, 
*'  upon  a  very  precarious  Foundation,  &c/*  But  all  this 
Reafoning  proceeds  on  a  very  precarioits  Found  at  ion.  For 
he  is  miftaken  in  his  Suppofition,  that  the  underfianding 
of  our  Saviour's  Meanin^^  in  the  Commiffion  depends  on  thefe 
Inflances  of  Baptifm.   The  CommJfTion  is  clear  enough  of 
it  {€ii^  and  though  the. Subjects  of  Baptifm  be  not  ex- 
prefs'd  in  it,  yet  there  appears  full  and  plain  Warrant  for 
baptizing  the  Infants  of  Believers,  both  from  the  Com- 
miiFion  it  felf,  and  from  other  Teftinlonies  and  Declara- 
tions of  facred  Writ  :    And  the  Paedobaptifts  had  gone 
upon  fure  Grounds  in  baptizing  them,  even  thotheieln- 
ftances  had  not  been  extant  irt  Scripture.     Therefore  he 
might  have  fpared  his  invidious  Refiedion,  that  Paedo- 
baptifm,  '*  mull  ftand  upon  a  very  bad  Bottom,    having 
"  neither  Precept  nor  Precedent  for  it  :'*  As  being  the 
Confequence  ol  the  erroneous  Conceits  of  his  ov/n  Head» 
Only  we  learn  by  thefe  Infl:anceS;how  the  ApoUks  them- 

C  c  fcivcs 


386  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  Y. 

felves  underftood  their  CommifTion,  (as  is  aflerted  in  the 
:DialcguCy  and  not  that  the  Meaning  of  it  depends  on  thefe 
InJlanc'es)icQing  in  theExecution  otit  they  baptiz'd  whole 
Houiholds  upon  theFaith  of  the  Parent,  or  Miiiltr  of  the 
Family.  And  this  is  fufficient  Security  to  the  Pradice  of 
the  PasdobaptiftSjwhether  they  be  fure  there  were  Infants 
in  thefe  Families,  or  no.  For  from  hence  it  is  evident, 
that  as  Abraham  was  at  firft  admitted  with  his  whole 
Houdiold  into  theCovenant  byCircumcifion,  and  thence- 
forward profelyted  Parents  from  Gentilifm  were  in  like 
-Manner  admitted  with  their  whole  Houfhold,  tho'  con- 
rfifting  of  Children  ever  fo  young  -,  fo  it  is  the  Mind  of 
•of  God  (plainly  intimated  in  thefe  Examples^  that  the 
fame  Method  of  making  Profelytcs  by  Baptifm  to  the 
ChriftianChurch  fhould  continue  withoutVariarion  under 
the  Gofpel.  That  Parents  believing  in  Chrift,  and  being 
ihemfelves  baptized,  fhould  bring  all  their  Houfhold 
with  them  into  the  Covenant  with  God,  and  take  Care 
to  initiate  all  under  their  Charge,  how  young  foever,into 
the  fame  Faith,  and  religious  ProfelTion  &  Obligation  to 
be  the  Lord's  by  Baptifm.  And  therefore  our  Author  is 
miftaken  when  he  adds,  (2.)  ''  It  lies  upon  them  (the 
,"  P^dobaptijh)  to  prove  that  there  were  Infants  in  thefe 
-**  Families,  and  that  thefe  Infants  were  baptized.'*  And 
fays  it  is  "  unfair  to  put  it  upon  .,us  to  prove  a  Negative^ 
"  to  prove  there  were  none."  Anfw,  It  does  not  fo  much 
cpncern  the  Pasdobaptifts  tor  juftifying  their  Pradice,  to 
be  fure  there  were  Infants  in  thefe  Families,  as  it  does 
their  Adverfaries  to  be  fure  there  were  none.  For  the 
P^dubaptifls  do  not  refi  their  Pradlice  on  {o  poor  a  Shifty 
as  Dr.  Gill  has  reprefented  it,that  is,their  being  fure  there 
were  Infants  m  thefe  Families,  and  leaving  it  to  theirAd^ 
verfaries  to  prove  there  were  none  :  For  how  uncertain 
foever  this  may  be,  yet  the  Allegation  of  thefe  Inflances 
is  very  much  to  their  Purpofe,  as  it  fhews  what  the  Rule 
was  which  theApolfles  went  by  in  adminiifring  Baptifm 
purfuant  to  their  Commi(rion,that  when  anyHoufholder, 
ur  Parent  believed,  and  was  baptized,  they  were  wont  to 

baptize 


Chap.  V.  ef  Infant-Baptifm.  387 

baptize  the  wholeHoufe  or  Family.  TheQueftion  is  not. 
Whether  there  were  any  Infants  in   thefe  ieveral  Hou- 
fholds,  nor  does  the  Caufe  of  the  Psedobaptifts  depend  on 
theRefolution  of  thisQuellion:  But  it  being  certain  thac 
the  whole  Houfhold  was  baptiz'd  with  the  believing  Pa- 
rent or  Head  of  it,  fand  that's  all  we  need  to  be  fure  di) 
it  necelTarily  follows,that  were  there  ever  fo  manylnfants 
in  them,  they  were  all  baptized  upon  the  ProfelTion  and 
Baptifm  of  their  Parents.     And  this  Rule  which  the  A- 
pottles  went  by  in  difcipling  and  baptizing  the  Nations, 
lb  agreable  to  the  Rule  5c  iMethod  of  Profelytifm, which 
all  along  obcain'd  in  the  Jewifli  Church,  affords  fuHicienc 
Diredion  &  Warrant  toMinillers  to  baptize  wholeHoufes 
and  Families,  upon  the  Parents  ProtelTion  andAdmiilioa 
into  theSchoolof  Chrift-,  to  initiate  all  that  are  theirs,evea 
the  youngeft  Children  into  the  fame  ProfeiTion  and  Dif- 
cipline  by  Baptifm      But   our  Adverfaries  denying  the 
Warrantablenefs  of  Infant- Baptifm,  confidently  pretend 
there  are  no  Inftanccs  or  Intimations  of  Infants  baptiz'd 
in  theNew-Teftament  f  but  before  they  fliould  be  fo  pre- 
remtory,  they  are  oblig'd  inDefence  of  their  ownOpinion 
to  prove  there  were  no  Infants  in  thefe  feveral  Families, 
efpecially  fince  theProbability  lies  fo  ftrong  againft  them, 
fgr  though  there  are  fome  Families  in   mofl  Places  here 
and  there  one,  that  have  no  young  Children  :  and  it  was 
an  extraordinary  Thing,  that  when  God   fmote  the  firil- 
bora  of  Egypt ^  there  was  not  an  Houfe  in  which  there  was 
not  one  dead.  Exod.  12.  30.    Remarkable  !  That  in  fo 
large  a  Country  there  was  not  a  Family  wichoutChildren, 
a  Child  at  lead  -,  yet  that  three  fuch  Families,   as  thoic 
mention'd,  Ihould  have  no  Infants  in  them,  or  Children 
in  the  State  and  Condition  of  Infants,  in  Refped  of  their 
Capacity  for  Baptifm,  is  utterly  improbable  and  incredi- 
ble.    However,our  Author  attempts  to  fhew  it  probable 
that  there  were  no  Infants  in  thefeFamilies  :  &  pretends 
to  make  it  appear,  (3.)  "That  there  are  many  Things  in 
••'  the  Account  of  the  Baptifm  of  thefe  Families  that  arc 
•'  inconfillent  with  Infants,  and  which  make  it  at  l^aft 
C  c  2  ^'probablfj 


^88  A  Defence '  of  the  Divine  Ri^ht        Chap.  V. 

"  probable,  there  were  none  •,  and  certain  (\\t  fays)  that 
*'  thofe  that  were  baptized  were  adult  Pcrfons,  and  Be- 
"  liever.s  inChrifl:."  But  I  fearDr.  Gill  is  too  far  engag'd, 
to  be  able  to  pafs  an  impartial  Judgment  of  what  is  pro- 
bable in  this  Cafe.  So  much  may  be  granted,  (and  more 
Cannot  reafonably  be  dtfmanded)  that  there  might  be  fome 
Ferfons  of  Aduk-Age  in  thefe  (everal  HoulLolds,  who 
might  upon  a  per fonal  Pfofeflion  be  baptiz'd  with  the 
Heads  of  them  ;  but  that  tliere  were  no  lnfants,or  Chil- 
dren in  Minority  in  any  of  rhefe  Families,  he  is  fo  far 
from  making  ir  appear  certain^ih^t  \\t.  is  not  abk  to  make 
cut  the  lead  Probabihty  of  it;  Let  fhe  impartial  Reader 
weigh  his  Arguments,  (i.)  As  to  Lydia  y  he  is  uncertain 
whether  fhe  was  "  a  Maid,  Wife,  or  Widow."  But  it  is 
not  at  all  probable  that  flie  was  a  Virgin,  being  the 
Keeper  of  anlloufe,  but  whether  a  Wife  or  Widtw  ks  not 
laid  :  And  then  he  is  in  a  like  Doubr,  "Whether  Ihc  had 
*'  any  Children, —  or  if  llie  had,  whether  rhey  were  In- 
*'  fants  or  Adults.*'  So  that,  here  is  guel's  Work  (till,  and 
oiie  may  eafily  conclude  what  he  would  guefs.  To  make 
it  look  pr  )bable,flie  had  no  Infants,he  is  torc'd  to  fuppofe, 
»"  That  llie  had  newly  arriv'd  ^i Philippic  from  Thyatiray 
^*  and  had  hir'd  an  Houfe  during  bcrStay  there,and  that 
•"  therefore  it  is  not  likely  that  (he  brought  Inhints  with 
*^  her,but  that  herlloulhold  confilkdol  meniaiServan'ts.'^* 
Ail  which  is  meer  Imagination  and  Surmife,  there  being 
not  an  Hint  in  the  facred  Story  to  found  theleConje^tures 
\ipon.  It  fe^ms  far  more  likely  that  Ihe  had  for  fometime 
a  fettled  Flabitarion  there,  though  a  Native  o(  ^'hyaiira^ 
fince  fhe  was  in  a  Capacity  to  entertain  Strangers,  and  in- 
vited the  Apoftle  and  his  Companions  to  take  up  their 
Lodgings  at  her  Houfe.  And  when  flie  is  faid  to  have 
her  iioulhold  or  Family  baptized,  it  is  much  more  rea- 
fonable  to  underftand^t  ot  her  Children  than  Servants  : 
Child  re!)  in  Scripture  Dialed:  being  faid  more  proper- 
ly and  freqi-tentlyto  contlitute  an  Houfe.  Noah  prepared 
an  Ark  to  the  faving  of  his  Houfe,  Ihb.  1 1.  7.  I'ke  Ser- 
vant aPideih'not  in  the  Houfe  always.  Job.  8.  o^^.  Hence 

the 


Chap.  V;  of  Infant- Baptifin.  ^89 

the  Phrafe  of  building  the  Houfe  of  any  one  is  a  figurative 
Expreflion  commonly  us'd  for  raifiiig  up  a  Family  of 
-Children.  Ruth.. \..  11.  i  Sam  1  o^^.L^c,  He  attempts 
to  prove  it  from  what  is  faid,  ^.  40.;  Thofe  whom  the 
Apoflles  vifictd  after  they  came  out  of  Prifon  ''  are  called 
■*'  Brethren,  and  were  capable  of  being  comforted  by 
•**  them."  Therefore  there  were  no  Infants  in  Lydias 
Houfe.  How  far  fetch'J  is  this  Reafon  ?  (i.)  He  mud 
prove  that  they  faw  the  Brethren  at  the  Houfe  o'i  Lydia  ; 
tut  this  is  not  faid  j  they  might  vifit  them  at  their  leve- 
ral  Habitations  for  ought  .that  appears  to  the  contrary 
from  the  Text.  (2. J  He  mud  prove  that  thofe  Brethren 
whom  they  comforted  were  of  the  Houfhold  oiLydia^ 
and  not  rather  a  meeting  of  the  Brethren  at  her  Houfe. 
{3.)  Suppofing  fome  of  thefe  Brethren  capable  of  being 
comforted,  were  of  theHoufhold  of  Lydia,  he  mull  prove 
the  Confequence,  that  therefore  there  could  be  no  young 
Children  baptiz'd  in  it.  But  not  one  of  thefe  Things  is 
he  able  to  prove,  therefore  all  his  Realbning  here  {lands 
on  a  very  precariousFoundation,&is  far  from  evincing -a 
Probability,  much  lefs  a  Certainty, that  there  were  no  In- 
fants.in  this  Family  baptized. 

(2.)  As  to  the  Jailor's  Houfhold,  ail  that  he  alledges 
from  the  facred  Hiftory,  proves  no  more,  than  that  there 
were  fome  adult  Perfons  in  it,  who  believed  theApoitles 
Dodrine,  and  were  Baptized  the  fameTime  with  thejai- 
lor.  Who  doubts  it  ^  But  how  does  this  argue  that  there 
were  no  others  baptized  in  it,  who  were  in  the  infanriie 
State  ?  Since  it  is  faid,that  all  thai  %v ere  His  were  baptiz- 
edy  Acts  16.  0^7^,  Whence  had  Dr.  Gill  his  Revelation, 
that  he  had  no  Infants  baptized,  becaufe  fome  adukPer- 
fons  belonging  to  hisFamily  believed,  &  were  baptized  } 
Do  not  moft  Families  indifrerently  numerous  copfift  of 
both  Sorts  ?  But  that  which  Dr.  Gill  dc  his  Party  chiefly 
harp  upon,  is  what  is  faid  /.  34. — He  rejoiced  hiieving  in 
God  zvhb  all  bis  Houfe,  As  to  this  (  omitting  tjie  diffe- 
rent Tranflation  and  Senfe  given  of  thefe  Words  by  fome 
V.x-?o^\tor'^^BeIicvirg  in  Gcd^  be  rej:iced  all  bisHcufe  over: 

C  c  '^   '  The 


^go  J  D^fenci  of  t be  Divine  Right  Chap.  V» 

The  Words  we  render  with  all  his  Houfe^  are  but  one  in 
the  Original,  Panoiki  ;    or  he  believing  in  God,  rejoiced 
for  the  Salvation  that  was  come  to  all  his  Houfe,   as   it 
was  promifed,>^.  31.)  let  me  obferve.  That  inScripture- 
Reckoning,  the  Children  of  Believers,    even    in  a  State 
of  Infancy  or  Minority,are  accounted  Believers,and  num- 
ired  with  Believers.     I  fhall  cite  but  one  Place  to  this 
Purpofe,  Ads  2.  44.  All  that  believed  were  together^  and 
had  all  "Things  common.     This  Communion  of  Goods  was 
defign'd  for  the  Suftenance  and  Relief  of  the  wholeChri- 
llian  Community  at  that  Time  •,  and  when  it  is  faid.  All 
that  believed  were  together  \  it  is  uncertain,  whether  they 
were  all  together  in  one  Place,  or  whether  they  were  to- 
gether in   feveral   diftin61:  Societies  ;  the  latter  of  thefe 
jeems  moft  probable.     However,  certain  it  is,  that  they 
were   all  fo  together,  'as  to  be  apart  by  themfelves,  and 
feparate  from  the  unbelieving  Party  of  the  Nation.  Now 
thebelievingParents  among  them  either  had  their  Infants 
and  youngChildren  with  them,or  they  had  not  :  If  theyhad 
notjthey  mud  be  unnatural  to  them,&  leave  them  toStarve ; 
for  whence  fhould  they  be  providejd  for  ?  Did  theirChri- 
llian  Profeflion  teach   them  to  be   worfe  than  Infidels  ? 
I  Ti^'  5.  8.  But  if  they  had  their  Children  with  them, 
as  Part  of  the  Chriftian  Community,   which  was  diftin- 
guilhed  and  feparated  from  the  Unbelievers,  then  it  is  e- 
vident  that  their  Infant-Children  have  the  Title  &Deno- 
niination  of  Believers  given  them  in  Common  with  their 
Parents  ;  for  it  was  a  Community  of  Believers.     Why 
then  might  not  theJailor'sFamily,fuppofing  there  were  in 
it  feveralChildren  inMinority,havethe Title  of  aFamily  of 
Believers,ora  believing  Family  ?  And  they  that  conclude, 
either  that  there  were  no  Infants  in  hisFamily,or  if  there 
were,  that  is  certain,  there  were  none  Baptized,  becaufe 
it  is  faid,  He  believed  with  all  his  Houfe ;  may    as  well 
conclude  (in  the  forementioned  Inftancej  that  there  were 
no  Infants  among  the  Multitudes    that  believed,  or  if 
«here  were,  it  is  certain  they  had  noShare  in  theCommu- 

nity 


Chap.  V.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  391 

nity  of  Goods,  becaufe  it  is  faid,  All  that  believed  were  to-r 
getber^  and  bad  a  I  Tbings  common.     And, 

(3.)  As  to  the  HouIl:iold  of  Stephanus,  all  our 
Author  fays,  worth  taking  Notice  of,  is  that,  i  Cor.  16, 
15. — They  addiSied  tbemfelves  to  the  Miniftry  of  theSaints. 
Whence  it  feems  probable,  that  he  had  a  large  and  nu- 
merous Family,  (  fome  of  which  were  capable  of  doing 
Service  to  the  Saints,  i.  e.  the  Chriftians  of  that  Place  ) 
which  renders  it  more  likely  that  there  were  fomelnfants 
in  it.  Thefe  are  all  his  Proofs. —  Yet  he  concludes  as 
if  he  had  carried  his  Point,  "  All  which  in  each  of  the 
"  In{lances,can  never  be  faid  of  Infants."  HisArgumenc 
amounts  to  no  more  than  this  :  Becaufe  fome  Things 
are  faid  of  fome  adult  Perfons  in  thefe  Families,  which 
are  not  applicable  to  Infants ;  therefore  there  could  be 
no  Infants  in  them.  And  let  every  one  that  knows  how 
to  ufe  his  Underftanding  free  from  Biafs,  judge  whether 
this  Argument  makes  out  the  leaft  Probability. 

VIL  The  lad  Text  our  Author  has  tho't  fit  to  con- 
trovert, is  that,  in  Rom.  11.  17, — 24.  If  fome  of  the 
Branches  he  broken  off^  &c.  ThisPafTagc  has  been  aliedg'd 
to  Ihew  that  the  fame  fubftancial  Privileges  of  thejewifli 
Church,  derived  from  the  Covenant  with  Abraham,  are 
tranfmitted  into  the  Gentile  Churches  under  the  Gofpel, 
which  being  graffed  into  the  Stock  of  theJewifhChurch, 
the  good  Olive  Tree y  come  to  partake  with  d'iem  of  the 
Root  and  Fatnefs  of  the  Olive  Tree^  i.  e.  of  the  fame  Co- 
venant-Privileges for  Subftance,  and  confequently  the 
Privilege  of  having  the  Covenant  extended  and  fealed  to 
their  Infant-Offspring  -,  which  was  of  eminent  Confide- 
ration  in  the  Old-Teftament  Church  :  This  is  the  very 
Thing  intended  by  theApoflle,  in  thisAilegory  oUngraf- 
fing  \  and  it  is  a  very  beautiful  one,  and  ferv-es  to  teach 
us,  among  other  Things,  that  the  Church  of  God  under 
every  Adminiftration,  was  defign'd  to  be  propagated,  by 
its  natural  Branches,  till  a  new  ingrafhng  j  &  when  that 
is  made,  the  fame  Method  [of  Propagation  is  appointed 
to  continue  >  for  who  is  io  un(kilful,as  not  to  know  that 

C  c  4  tbt 


392  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  V. 

the.  Buds  are  ufually  ingraffed  together  with  the  Cyon 
into  the  Stock,  tor  Increale  and  Mukiphcation  ?  And 
as  in  this  Allegory,  the  unbelieving  Jevvs  were  broken 
ciF,  as  Branches  with  their  Buds,  that  is,  they  and  their 
Children  were  dilcovenanted  ;  fo  the  believing  Gentiles 
were  grafFed  in  as  Branches  with  their  Bud.%  among  thole 
that  remained  unbroken  off ;  that  is,  they  and  theirChil- 
dren  were  taken  into  vifible  Covenant  with  God,  as  the 
Jevvs  of  old  were.  Dr.  Gill  oppofes  this  Interpretation 
with  a  great  Deal  of  Confidence,  as  ufual,  but  at  the 
iameTime  with  a  greatDeal  ofWeakneis  in  hisReafoning 
2gai  lit  it,  which  a  few  Words  may  fsrve  to  cxpofe. 

(i.)  He  allows  ^'  that  believing  Gentiles  Ihare  in  all 
*^  the  fpirituai  BlefTings  of  the  Jewifh  Church,  or  of  Be- 
*'  lievers  under  the  former  Difpenfation."  But  I  anfwer. 
Though  fpirituai  BlelTings  are  not  excluded,(yea  I  grant 
they  are  included )yet  vifible  Church-Piivileges  are  prin^ 
cipally  intended  by  partaking  of  the  Root  and  Fatnefs  of 
the  Olive-Tree;  the  Privileges  which  the  Jewilh  Church 
had,  being  founded  on  the  Covenant  folemnly  tranfaded 
between  God  and  them,  whereby  *he  took  them  into  Re- 
lation to  himfelf,  as  his  vifible  Church,  entitled  to  fpeci- 
al  Privileges,  and  Means  of  Grace,  to  fpecial  Ordinances 
and  Providences,  and  that  purfuant  to  theCovenant  with 
Abraham^  Ifaac  and  Jacobs  and  their  St^^^  which  was 
the  Root  of  Church-Memberihip  to  the  Jews.  But 
Chrifl  is  the  Root  of  all  fpirituai  BlefTings  and  Privileges 
to  Believers  :  And  if  thcie  only  were  meant  in  the  Apo- 
ple'sAllegory,  how  could  the  unbelievingjews  be  broken 
offlromthsfe  fpirituai  Privileges, which  they  never  enjoyed, 
and  never  had  any  real  or  vifible  Communion  with  the 
Rootjefus  Chrifl  ?  What  an  Impertinence  then  is  it  ('to 
life  his  own  Lariguage  )  to  talk  of  cutting  off  from  that 
which  was  never  had^  and  never  was  ?  But  even  the  un- 
believing Jews  had  a  Standing  in  the  vifibleChurch,  till 
they  were  broken  off   through  Unbelief. 

(2.)  He  argues  from  his  former  bafficd  Tenets,  That 
^5  the  Covenant  of  Grace  was  nsver  feaied  to  Abraham  % 

"  naturd 


Chap.  V.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  593 

**  natural  Seed, —  Did  not  belong  to  them  as  fuch,  nor 
*'  was  Circumcinon  a  Seal  of  it  to  them,  &c  "  And  if 
he  could  make  good  thefe  Things,  I  ihouid  readily  agree 
with  him,  that  "  it  is  a  great  Impropriety  and  Imperti- 
."  nence  to  talk  of  cutting  oif  trom  that  wiiich  was  never 
*'  had,  and  never  was."  But  thefe  odd  Conceits  have 
been  abundantly  confuted  already,  and  rejected  as  un- 
icriptural,  unfound,  and  erroneous. 

(3.)  He  g^)es  on  to  fay,  '^  The  beiievingGennles  were 
y-  never  grafFed  into  thatChurchj  thatChuich-Scare,with 
*'  all  the  peculiarOrdinances  of  it,  was  utterly  aboii(hed 
'^  by  Chrift — *'  And  again,  *'The  Jev;ifli  Church  is  not 
."  the  Olive  Tree,  of  whofe  Root  and  Facnefs  the  Gen- 
*'  tiles  partake  ;  they  are  not  graffed  in  to  the  oldjewifh 
,"  Stock  ;  the  Ax  has  been  laid  to  theRoot  of  that  Tree, 
*'  and  it  is  intirely  cut  down,  &:c.''  Meer  Confufion  ! 
Truth  and  Fallliood  blended  together  !  For  want  of 
diflinguifliing  as  he  ought  concerning  the  Jewifli  State» 
which  may  be  confidered  either  as  Ecclefiaftical  or  Poli- 
tical ;  or  in  other  Words,  as  a  Church,  or  a  Common- 
Wealth.  As  a  Church,  they  were  founded  on  theCove- 
nant  made  with  Abraham  and  his  Seed,  whereby  they 
were  obliged  to  acknowledge  and  believe  in  the  trueGod, 
the  God  o[  Abraham^  Ifaac  and  Jacob,  as  their  God,  and 
to  worfliip  and  obey  him  only,  and  inritled  to  peculiar 
Favours  from  him.  But  when  they  became  a  Nation, 
and  upon  their  Deliverance  out  of  Egypt ^  they  were  alfo 
form'd  into  a  Common-W^ealth,  by  fwndry  Laws  and 
Ordinances  given  them  by  Mofes,  which  continued  till 
theComing  of  Chrili  ;  after  which  it  was  dilfolved.  And 
he  may  fay,  if  he  pieafes,  T'be  Ax  was  laid  to  the  Root  of 
this  Tree^  and  //  was  entirely  cut  down.  For  the  Jewiih 
Nation  as  a  Body  Pohtick,  was  wholly  exterminated  by 
the  Romans.  Again,  as  to  the  Jewidi  Church- State,  we 
muft  diftinguifh  between  its  clTential  Conllitution,  and 
its  outward  Form  of  Adminiltration,  by  peculiar  Ordi- 
nances and  Rites  of  Worfliip.  'Tis  granted,  tliis  latter 
was  abcliihed   a:  the  Death  of  Chrid.     But  the  Jewi(h 

Church, 


394         ADefenct  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.  V. 

Church,  with  Regard  to  its  eflential  Conditution  as  a 
religiousSociety  join'd  together  in  the  Bonds  of  theCove- 
nant,  for  the  Worfliip  andService  of  God,  to  whom  per- 
tained thePromifes ;  was  never  abohfhed5(th6  the  outward 
Form  of  Adminiftration  was  chang'd,  and  the  pecuHar 
Ordinances  of  it  abrogated)  but  fubfifted  after  the  Com- 
mencement of  the  Gofpel-Adminiftration,  under  which 
the  Members  of  that  Church  were  the  only  Church  of 
Chrid,  for  divers  Years  after  his  Death  &  Refurredion, 
before  cheCalUng  of  theOentiles.  It  is  theJewifhChurch 
that  is  compar'd  to  an  OHve-Tree  in  Scripture,//^/.  14.6. 
Jer.  1 1 . 1 6.  But  never  the  Chriftian.  TheUnbelievers  of 
that  Nation  fince  Chrift's  Coming,  were  the  Branches 
broken  off  -,  but  thofe  that  believed  inChri{l,are  theBran- 
ches  left  Handing  in  the  Olive-Tree,  and  continued  in 
the  PoiTefTion  of  their  ancient  CovenantPrivileges,  as  the 
Chriftian  Seed  of  Abraham^  under  a  far  better  Difpenfa- 
tion.  And  among  thefe'the  converted  Gentiles  were  the 
Branches  graffed  in.  NoMan  pretends  they  were  grafFed 
into  the  Ordinances  of  the  JewifhChurch,  but  among  the 
Members  of  the  Jewifli  Church  into  the  fameStock,unto 
a  Participation  with  them  of  the  Root  and  Fatnefs  of  the 
Olive-Tree,\.e.  the  Root  of  the  Abrahamitical  Covenant, 
with  all  the  main  Privileges  de/ived  thence  to  the  Jewilli 
Church,  which  that  Church  was  never  cut  'off  from  by 
the  Gofpel-Difpenfation  fucceeding,  but  which  were  im- 
proved to  greater  Perfection.  And  to  fay,thac  the  Stock 
of  the  Jewifh  Church  is  intirely  cut  down  by  the  Ax  being 
laid  at  the  Root^  is  to  fay,  that  God  harh  excommunica- 
ted and  caft  off  his  ancient  People  \  which  is  the  very 
Objedion  that  the  Apoftle  fets  himfelt  to  confute  in  this 
Chapter^  and  rejedts  it  with  great  Vehemence  andAbhor- 
rence.  f.  i.  Hath  God  cafi  away  his  People  ?  God  for- 
bid. (He  means  his  Jewifh  People  taken  into  that  Rela- 
tion to  him  as  the  Seed  of  Abraham)  and  therefore  the 
Apoftle  inftancing  in  his  own  Perfon  as  one  of  the  Rem- 
nant which  God  had  refervcd  to  himfelf,  {for  lalfo  am 
4in  Ifraelite)  is  careful  to  add,  of  the  Seed  of  Abraham  &c. 

This 


Chap.  V.  cf  Infant-Baptifm.  395 

This  Remnant  were  the  Branches  of  the  Olive-Tree  that 
fprang  from  the  Root  of  Abraham^  Covenant,  while  the 
unbelieving  Party  were  disfranchis'd. 
;  (4.)  He  pretends,  that  ''the  Olive-Trec  of  whofe  Root 
•*•  and  Fatnefs  believing  Gentiles  partake,  is  the  Gofpel 
*'  Church-State,out  of  which  thejews  thatreje(5ledChrift 
"  were  left."  But  this  Senfe  is  againft  the  current  of 
Interpreters,  and  which  is  more,  it  is  offering  Violence 
to  the  Text,  being  contrary  to  the  plain  Characters  laid 
down  in  this  Allegory  :  which  direcfls  us  to  a  different 
Interpretation,  and  can  with  no  Propriety  ot  Speech  or 
'^i^xxi^^  be  accommodated  to  the  JewifliUnbelievers,  if  the 
Gofpel  Church-State  be  meant  by  the  Olive-Tree.  For 
to  indance  in  one  or  two  Particulars. 

(i.)  How  could  the  unbelieving  Jev/s  be  broken  off 
from  theGofpel-Church,  who  were  never  in  it  ?  For  that 
is  theWord  here  ufed,  Execlaftheefan^  broken  off ;  not  left 
out^  as  he  would  infinuate  to  his  Reader  :  which  carries  a 
very  different  Senfe  :  To  be  left  out  is  one  Thing,  and  to 
be  broken  off  is  quite  different.  The  Heathen  that  never 
had  the  Gofpel  preached,  as  well  as  the  Unbelievers  who 
had,  are  left  out  of  the  Gofpel-Church  ;  but  none  can  be 
faid  to  be  broken  otffromlt,but  who  were  once  in  it :  'tis 
as  good  Senfe  to  fay,a  Branch  may  be  broken  off  from  a 
Tree  that  was  never  in  it,  nor  grew  from  it.  But  our 
Author,  I  prefume,  will  not  admit  the  unbelieving  Jews 
ever  to  have  been  in  the  Gofpel-Church,  as  it  is  certain 
they  never  were  fo  much  as  vifibleMembers  of  it.There- 
fore  this  only  might  convince  him,  that  he  is  wrong  in 
his  Suppofition,that  theOlive  Tree  is  theGofpel  Church- 
State.  His  own  Mixim  might  confute  him,  for  has  he 
already  forgotten  what  he  had  faid  but  the  Page  before, 
''  It  is  a  great  Impropriety  and  Impertinence,  to  talk  of 
*'  cutting  off  trom  that  which  was  never  had,  and  never 
*'  was."  And  is  it  not  as  great  Impropriety  and  Im- 
pertinence to  talk  of  the  unbelieving  Jews  being  broken 
off  from  the  Olive  Tree,  that  is  (  in  his  Opinion  )  from 
the  Gofjjci  Church-Statejwho  were  neverMembers  of  it  } 

(2.;  If 


296  ^  Defence  of  the  Bivine  Right         Chap.  Vv 

(2  J  If  this  Opinion  were  true,  that  the  Olive-Trcc 
here,  is  the  Gofpel  Church-State,  and  if  the  unbelieving 
Jews  never  had  any  Intereft  in  that  Church  State  ;  with 
what  Reafon  or  Truth  could  the  Apoftle  call  it  their  own 
Olive-Tree^  f.  24  ?  How  could  it  be  their  own^  if  they 
never  had  any  Propriety  in  orRelation  to  it  ?  As  it  is  nla- 
nifeft  they  never  had  to  the  Gofpel-Church.  It  could 
therefore  in  no  other  S^i^St  be  called  their  ownOlive-'Tree^- 
than  as  they  formerly  pertained  to  it  as  Branches,  whillt 
they  were  vifible  Members  of  the  Jewifh  Church. 

(3.)  Why  are  they  called  the  natural  Branches  of  this 
Olive-Tree  ?  The  Apoftle  fpeaking  of  a  future  Conver- 
fion  of  the  Jews,  faith,  /.  24. — How  much  more  fhall  thefe 
%vhich  be  the  natural  Branches^  he  graffed  into  their  own 
Olive-Tree  ?  Were  the  unbelievingjews  the  naturalBran- 
ches  of  the  GofpelChurch-State  ?  Or  doth  nor  thisPhrafe 
moft  plainly  point  out  this  Senfeto  us,  viz.  That  by  vir- 
tue of  (heir  natural  defcent  from  Mrahani,  according  to 
theConftitution  ofGod'sCovenant  with  him,  they  had  the 
Privileo-eofvifibleChurch-Memberfhipbelongingtotheni 
and  theirSeed,from  which  they  were  broken  ofFfhro'Un« 
belief  -,  but  upon  theirConverfion  andFaith  in  Chriftjthey 
fhall  be  reinftated  in  their  formerCovenantPrivileges,and 
partake  again  of  the  Root  &  Fatnefs  of  their  ovvnOlive- 
Tree  ;  and  this  Privilege  among  others,  of  having  the 
Covenant  continued  to  their  natural  Seed,  as  it  had  been 
from  the  Beginning,and  that  without  Variation  fromAge 
to  Age,  to  the  World's  End  -,  as  plainly  appears  fiom 
f.  26,27.  of  this  Chapter,  compared  with  Ifai.^c). 20,21. 
Thefe  Remarks  entirely  overthrowDr.Gi//'s  Hypothefis, 
that  the  Gofpel-Church-Scate  is  meant  here  by  theO//i'^- 
Tree,  Which  being  refuted,  his  towering  Boaft  in  what 
follows  under  this  Head,  midl  fall  of  Courfe.  He  fays, 
P.  86.  "  That  this  Text  isfo  far  from  being  decifive  in 
"  the  prefent  Cafe,  that  there  is  not  one  Word,  one  Syl- 
"  lable  about  Baptifm  in  ic,  and  ftill  Icfs  in  Favour  oi  In- 
<^  fant- Baptifm."  Not  one  Word,  one  Syllable  !  Is  no- 
thing then  to  be  prov'd  from  Scripture,  but  what  is  coiv 

tain'd 


Chap.  V.  of  Infant- Baptifm.  o,(^'j 

tain*d  in  it,  in  fo  many  Words  and  Syllables  ?  How  will 
he,  or  any  Man  prove  the  Trinity,  the  Incarnation  and 
Sacisfaftion  of  Ch rill, and  other ChriftianDodrine?,  which 
are  not  in  the  very  Words  and  Syllables  contained  \i\ 
Scripture  ?  Such  a  W\iyof  arguing,  one  \yould  think, 
unworthy  of  a  Man  tha:  pretends  to  a  reafoningFaculty. 
But  what  does  a  Writer  ithat  ftudies  to  gratify  a  Party, 
care  for  that  ?Jf  it  may  pafs  forArgumenr,withthofe  that 
are  not  much  us'd  to  the  Exercife  of  that  Faculty,  he 
gains  bis  Point.  But  to  all  others,  it  will  appear  a  clear 
Cafe,  that  if  theOiive  Tree  with  the  Root  andFatnefs  of 
it,  mean  the  Church  of  Ifrael^  with  all  the  fubftantial Pri- 
vileges of  that  Church,  derived  from  the  Covenant  with 
Abraham  and  his  Seed,  and  continued  undiminifh'd  under 
the  Gofpel-Adminiftration,into  theCommunion  whereof 
the  believing  Gentiles  are  received^  as  his  ingrafFed  Seed, 
as  has  been  luliy  prov'd  ♦,  it  undeniably  follows,  thefe 
Privileges  mult  be  retained  in  their  fullellExtent  byGof- 
pel-Believers,  and  in  Particular,  that  of  the  Covenant  In- 
tereft  of  their  natural  Seed,  with  their  Right  to  the  ini- 
tiating Token  of  it,  in  its  vifible  Adminiltration  :  And 
this,  if  granted,  will  decide  the  Controverfy,  tho*  their 
be  not  a  Word  or  Syllable  of  Baptifm,  or  of  Infant-Bap- 
tifm  in  the  Argument. 

The  Chapter  is  concluded  with  our  Author's  Attempt 
to  anfwer  the  Charge  of  Partiality,  which  the  Antipas- 
dobaptifts  are  juftly  liable  to,  in  requiring  exprefs  New- 
Teft anient  Proofs  for  Infant- Baptifm,  while  they  do, with- 
out any  Scruple,  admit  Women  to  the  Lord'sTable,  and 
yet  are  not  able  to  produce  any  fuch  exprefs  New-Tefla- 
ment  Proof,  that  they  ought  to  be  admitted,  there  being 
no  exprefs  Precept  or  Example  in  the  New-Teitament, 
of  Women's  partaking  of  that  Sacrament  :  But  he  fails 
in  his  Attempt,  not  being  able  to  bring  any  other  than 
ConfequcnrialProofs.  PiisArguments,I  grant,  to  prove 
Womens  Right  and  Obligation  to  partake  of  the  Lord's- 
Supper,  are  in  the  Main  conclufive;  and  he  muft  be  a 
Wrangler  that  will  difpute  them.     But  I  affirm,    that 

there 


59?         A  Defence  ef  the  Divine  Rxght         Chap.  V. 

there  are  the  fame,  or  as  good  Proofs  of  the  Baptifm  of 
Infants. 

(i,)  He  pretends  to  fet  afide  the  Arguments  in  the 
Dialogue,  to  prove  Womens  Right  to  partake  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  and  yet  makes  ufe  of  the  fame  in  EfFed, 
or  fuch  as  coincide  with  them.  It  is  not  "  their  Cove- 
*'  nant-lntereft,  or  their  Claim  to  have  the  Covenant- 
^'  Seal  to  them,  &c."  but  "  their  being  Believers  and 
"  Difciples  of  Chriit,"  he  grants  is  the  Ground  of  their 
Admiffion,  {  fo  he  denies  and  affirms  the  fame  Thing  in 
Terms  equipollent)  Whereas  the  only  Ground  of  Belie- 
vers having  a  Right  to  the  Sacraments,  is  their  being  in 
vifible  Covenant  with  God  ;  The  Sacraments  being  evi- 
dently founded  on  a  Covenant.  And  we  bring  the  fame 
Proof  for  the  Infants  of  Believers,  theirTitle  to  Baptifm, 
from  their  being  accounted  Believers  and  Difciples, 
Mattb.  8.  6.  Aot.  2.  44.  Chap.  15.  10. 

(1.)  He  proves  it  by  "their  Right  to  theOrdinance  of 
Baptifm."  1  hat  Women  have  a  Right  to  thisOrdinance, 
and  that  there  is  exprefs  Proof  of  this  Right,  is  granted, 
but  I  deny  there  is  fuch  exprefs  Proof  of  their  Right  to 
the  other  Sacrament.  Nor  is  it  fo  clear  aCafe,that  "they 
''  that  have  Right  to  one  Ordinance,  have  to  another," 
as  not  to  need  Proof  For  it  may  be  objedted,  that  at 
the  hrft  Inftitution  and  Celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
there  were  only  Chrift's  own  Difciples  prefent  as  Com- 
municants, but  not  one  Woman  •,  nor  is  there  any  par- 
ticular pofitive  Dirediion  given  in  the  New-Teftamcnt 
for  Womens  partaking.  So  that  this  Proof  is  but  Con- 
fequential. 

(3.)  He  proves  it  from  "  their  being  Church  Mem- 
bers.'* But  if  this  be  good  Proof,  we  bring  the  fame  for 
the  Baptifm  of  Chriftian  Infants.  Luk,  i8.  j6.  1  Cor,  7. 
14.  EpL  5.  25,  26. 

(4.J  He  pretends  to  prove  it  by  Example.  But  herein 
he  fails  ;  hisExamples  ^it^Mary^  theMother  of  ourLord, 
and  other  W^omen,  who  are  faid  to  be  with  theDifciplet 
at  Jzrufakm^  who  went  into  an  upper  Room,  and  conti- 
nued 


Chap.  V.  of  Infant-Baptiim.  J99 

nued  with  one  Accord  in  Prayer  &  Supplication,  AEl,  i. 
13^  14.  And  in  the  following  Chapter  we  read  of  the 
Difciples  being  together,  and  breaking  of  Bread.  Adl.  2. 
42,  44,  46. — Whence  he  would  gather  an  Example  of 
Womens  partaking  of  the  Lord's- Supper.  But  here  is 
nothing  exprefs  to  this  Purpofe.  For  ('i.)  We  are  not 
certain,  whether  the  Women  mentioned  in  the  firftChap- 
ter,  were  with  theApoftles  at  the  Feaft  of  P^»/fr<7/;f,which 
was  one  of  the  three  Feflivals,  to  which  the  Males  only 
were  exprefly  required  to  repair.  Excd.  34.  23.  Nor  whe- 
ther the  Place  where  they  were  aflembled  when  the  holy 
Ghoft  was  given  them,  was  the  fame  with  that  upper 
Room  into  which  they  entred,  when  they  returned  to  J^- 
rufalem.  (2.)  Nor  are  Interpreters  agreed  about  the 
breaking  of  Bread  mentioned, /f/^.2. 42. 46. — W^hether  itis 
to  be  underftood  of  commpnBread,or  otSacramentalBread. 
But  granting  the  latter,  (3.)  What  is  faid  of  their  con- 
tinuing in  the  breaking  of  Breads  is  fpoken  of  thofe  that 
were  converted  &  baptiz'd  on  theDay  oi Pentecofl^  >^.  41. 
of  thefe  only  it  is  faid,  f,  42.  And  they  continued  in  the 
Jpoflles  Dotlrine  and  Fellowlhip^  and  in  breaking  of  Breads 
&c.  So  here  is  no  exprefs  Precedent,  or  Example  of  Fe- 
males partaking  of  the  Lord's-Supper.  The  utmoft  that 
can  be  concluded  hence  is,  that  it  is  probable,  fome  Wo- 
men were  admitted  as  Communicants :  And  we  affert 
there  is  at  lead  the  fame  Probability,  that  fome  Infants 
were  baptiz'd  in  the  whole  Houfliolds  mentioned. 

f  5.  j  He  pretends  to  prove  it  '•  by  a  divine  Diredlion^ 
*'  Exhortation  &Command."  He  muft  mean  an  exprefs 
divineDire<5lion  -,  otherwife  he  fays  no  more  than  what  may 
be  faid  for  Infant-Baptifm,  we  have  an  implicitDiredion, 
Exhortation  and  Command  of  God  for  the  baptizing  of 
Infants  ;  as  has  been  fhewn.  The  onlyText  he  brings  to 
prove,  there  is  a  divine  Dire6lion&  Command  for  Womens 
partaking  of  theLord's-Supper,is I  Cor.  11.  2S.Let  aMan 
examine  himfelf&fo  let  him  eat.  Therefore  (fo  his  Argument 
muft  run,)here  is  an  exprefsDiredion  and  Command,that 
a  Woman  ought  to  examine  her  felf,  and  fo  to  eat. 

And 


40O  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.  V, 

And  to  make  this  our,  he  obferves  that  the  Word 
Anthropos^  a  Many  "  is  of  the  common  Gender,  and  fig- 
*'  nifies  both  Men  and  Women  *'  1  Anfiver^  though  the 
Word  be  of  the  common  Gender,  and  theretore  applica- 
ble to  both  Sexes,  when  there  is  nothing  in  the  Subject- 
Matter  Ipoken  of  to  determine  it  to  one  Kind  rather  than 
another  *,  yet  if  we  infift  on  the  latter,  re  is  here  evidently 
limited  to  the  Male  Kind  by  the  Pronoun  Ihauton^  him^ 
flfy  which  is  of  theMalculine,  Let  a  Man  examine  himjelf. 
So  that  this  appears  the  weakeft  of  all  his  Proofs;  for  \i 
there  be  no  other  Argument  from  Scripture  to  prove 
Womens  Right,  and  Obligation  to  partake  of  the  lacred 
Supper,this  is  noArgument  at  all  thatthey  ought  to  dofo. 

And  tho  our  Author  afFeds  a  different  Method  of 
proving  this,  and  pretends  to  bring  differentReafons  from 
thofe  mentioned  in  the  Dialogue  ^  yet  inEffedjhe  produces 
nothing  of  any  Weight,but  what  is  coincident  with  them  j 
except  that  ot  Vv^omens  Right  toBaptifm  •,  and  excepting 
this  only,  which  is  the  Thing  difputed  in  the  Cafe  of  In- 
fants ;  we  bring  the  very  fame  Proof  for  their  Baptifm, 
and  altogether  as  good  as  any  he  is  able  to  alledge  for  the 
Admifiion  of  Women  to  the  facred  Communion.  And 
fo,I  hope,if  Dr.  Gill  will  (land  to  hisPromife,that  he  will 
have  done  difputing  againft  the  Baptifm  of  Infants,  yea^ 
•'  that  he  will  readily  admit  them  toBaptifm,'*P.87,89. 
for  the  Conditions  he  requires  are  performed.  It  has  beeri 
(hewed  of  the  Infants  of  Beilevers,  that  "they  areMembers 
"  of  theGofpel-Churchj'Vandhave  aRight  toalltheOrdi- 
nances  adminiftred  therein,  and  ought  to  be  admitted  to 
them  as  far  as  'they  appear  Subjeds  capable  -,  and  thae 
there  is  as  plain  ''  Precept  &  Precedent  for  the  baptizing, 
of  them,"  as  there  is  for  Womens  Communion.  fThere- 
fore  to  deal  impartially,  he  ought  not  t)  exclude  the  for- 
mer from  one  Ordinance,  if  he  can  without  Scruple,  ad- 
mit the  latter  upon  no  better  Grounds  to  the  other. 

Thus  I  have  finifhed  my  Remarks  upon  the  main  Sub* 
je6l  ot  Dr.  Gill's  Book,  which  he  has  iniitled.  The  divine 
Right  of  Injant  Baptifm  exa^nin'd  ^  difproved.     And  how 

fairl^j 


Chap.  VL  of  Infant-Baptifm.  401 

fairly  he  has  examined,  and  how  well  he  has  fucceedcd  in 
his  Attempt  to  difprove  this  Right  ;    as  alfo,    whether 
there  be  nothing  y^;V/  or  done  in  the  Word  of  God  that  gives 
any  Reafon  to  believe  it  is  his  IVill  that  it  /hould  be  cbferv^d^ 
(as  this  Gentleman  fo  confidently  affirms  in    his  Intro- 
dudion,)  I  hope  I  may  withSalety  leave  to  every  impar- 
tial, intelligent  Reader  to  judge,  after  the  Perufal  of  the 
foregoing  Remarks.     I  have  been  put  upon  faying  many 
Things,  and  making  ufe  of  many  Arguments  that  have 
been  often  faid  and  ufed  in  theDefence  of  Infant-Baptifm  ; 
Which  could  not  well  be  avoided,    when  the  fame  Ob- 
je(ftions  and  Cavils  are  raifed  by  its  Adverfaries  :   But  if 
I  miftake  not,  I  have  added  fome  new   IlluHration  and 
Enforcement  to  thofe  feveral  Arguments,   according  to 
the  Analogy  of  holy  Scripture  ;    at   kaft,    fuch  as  have 
not  occur'd  to  me  in  anyAuthor  I  have  feen.     And  upon 
the  whole,  I  may  venture  to  fay,  that  of   all  the  Truths 
and  Duties  that  are  not  deliver'd  in  exprefs  Terms  in 
Scripture,  but  are  by  juft  and  neceifary  Confequences  to 
be  deduced  thence,  this  of  Infant-Baptifm  appears  to  me 
with  the  moft  clear  and  fatisfying   Evidence,   and   the 
Grounds  of  it  therein, as  legible  as  if  written  withtheBeams 
of  theSun.  And  fince  it  isaDo6lrine  apparently  conducive 
to  theHonour  &  Glory  of  God's  richGrace  towardsMan, 
and  to  the  Intereft  ^Propagation  of  thcKingdom  of  Jefus 
Chrift  in  the  World,  as  the  fandified  Means  of  tranf- 
mitting  it  to  future  Ages  among  the  natural  Seed  of  the 
Church, and  to  the  Eftablifhment  of  die  Duty,  Comfort, 
and  Benefit  of  Men  ;  were  it  doubtful,  yet  methinks  ic 
fhould  be  very  defirable  to  every  good  Man  to  fee  it  con- 
firmed by  good   Scripture-Evidence  ;  and  efpecially  to 
every  one  that  has  the  Bowels  of  a  Parent,  who  is  con^ 
eern'd  to  find  fome  Intimations  in  the  Word  of  God,  as 
theGround  of  his  Faith  and  Prayer,  Comtort  and  Hope, 
concerning  his  Children  (and  fuch  Intimations  abundant- 
ly fufficient  for  that  Purpofe  have,in  this  &  the  foregoing 
Chapter,  been  ofi:er'd  to  the  Reader)  infomuch  that  Pre- 
judices cheriih'd  in  Men's  Minds  againfl  this  wholefome 

D  d  Doariiie, 


402         A  Defence  ef  the  Divine  Right         Chap. VI. 

Dpftrine,  on  Grounds  ib  weak  and  frivolous,  as  we  have 
feen,  appear  at  once  both  unreafonable,  uncharitable  and 
uncomtortable. 

Aii  that  remains  is  to  make  feme  brief  Remarks  on 
bis  laiL  Chapter,  which  relates  to  the  Mode  of  Admini  • 
ft  ration. 

Chap.     VI. 

The  Lawfulnefs  of  the  Mode  of  admlni- 
ftring  Baptifm  by  Afftifion^  or  Sprinklings 
defended. 

||m|HE  other  Part  of  the  Controverfy  rais'd  by  our 
^|T^p  •  Antipasdobaptiib,  which  this  Chapter  relates  to, 
^g^:^|  being  about  the  external  Modeot  adminiftring 
the  Ordinance  of  Baptifm,  whether  by  pouring 
on  Water,or  putting  intoWater,  the  Party  to  be  baptized, 
fcems  one  of  the  moil  trifling  Controversies  that  ever  was 
manag'd.  It  is  a  Controverfy,  I  fay,  rais'd  by  our  Ad- 
verfaries,  (whether  from  an  humorous  Singularity,  or 
Spirit  of  Conrradidion  to  their  Fellow-Chrillians,  or  (as 
it  generaljy  happens  to  mod  Sedaries)  from  an  intempe-. 
rate  and  unquiet  Zeal  tor  their  own  Opinion)  and  that 
for  little  or  no  Caufe  given  them.  For  \\  they  prefer  the  a 
Mode  of  Dipping  as  more  agreabie  to  their  Notion  of  | 
Baptifm,  or  if  they  be  not  fatislied  in  their  Confciences 
with  receiving  it  in  any  otherWay,they  m.ight  freely, and 
without  Offence  enjoy  their  own  Opinion,  and  make  ufe 
of  the  Mode  they  are  fo  fond  of :  We  Ihould  have  no 
Controverfy  with  them  •,  provided,  they  would  extend 
the  like  Candour  to  thoicChnifian  Brethren  trom  whom 
they  differ,  and  allow  them  the  Liberty  of  their  own 
judgment,  believing  they  alfo  are  perfuaded  in  their  own 
Cor^fciences  of  the  Lawtulncfs  and  Validity  of  the  other 
Mode  of  Afperfion,  or  pouring  of  Water  in  Baptifm. 

For 


Chap.  VI.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  4o_^ 

For  all  or  mod  P^dobaptids  do  allow  the  wafhing  the 
Body  by  dipping  it  in  Watter  to  be  a  lawful  and  vahd 
Adminiilration  of  the  Ordinance,  though  not  that  only. 
But  for  that  People  to  fet  up  their  own  Perfuafion  as  a  - 
Standard,  and  to  cenfure  and  condemn  the  Baprifm  of' 
others  as  a  Nullity,becaufe  they  don't  come  up  to  it  i.i 
that  Particular,  or  meerly  becaufe  they  are  not  wafhed  by- 
Dipping,  but  only  by  the  Affufion  of  Water  ;  what  is  ic 
elfe  but  to  make  the  whole  Ordinance  of  Baptifm,and  all 
vifibleChriftianity,  to  depend  on  a  Nicety,  a  Formality, 
and  even  a  Formality  notexprefly  infritutedjor  required 
b/  Jefus  Chrift  ?  This  is  purely  a  Piece  of  Pharifaifm, 
and  favours  nothing  of  the  Spirit  of  the  Gofpel,  which  is 
not  nice  and  punctual  about  the  little  Modes  &Circum- 
(lances  of  religious  Adions ;  and  can  have  Place  only  in 
Minds  too  far  addicled  to  Superftition.  Such  being  the 
Nature  of  the  Subjed  of  this  Chapter,  I  Ihall  not  dwell 
long  upon  it,  but  fhall  firft  propound  a  fewThings  tend- 
ing to  clear  and  fettle  the  Point  :  And  then  make  fome 
brief  Animadverfions  on  Dr.  GiU\  Exceptions  to  the  fe- 
veral  PajGTages  in  the  Dialogue. 

I.  I  fay  then.  Though  the  wafhing  of  Water,  or  the 
Application  of  Water  to  the  Body  or  Flefh,  in  a  Way 
proper  for  walhing,is  of  the  EfTence  of  Baptifm  ;  yet  the 
Mode  of  this  Application,  whether  by  Sprinkling,  pour- 
ing on,  or  dipping  intoWater,  is  not  eilential  ;  nor  is  ic 
determined  by  any  Inftitution  of  the  New-Teftamenr. 
That  ic  is  a  true  and  proper  Baptifm  which  is  inftituted 
by  Chrift,  in  which  the  Element  of  Water  is  to  be  ufed, 
we  maintain  againft  the  Qtiakers,  from  clear  and  unde- 
niable Teftimonies  ot  Scripture  :  fuch  as  (for  Inftance) 
A(5l.io.  47.  Can  any  Man  forbid  Water ^  that  thefe  flooidd 
not  he  baptifed  ?  But  all  that  is  made  efTential  by  the  In- 
ftitution to  the  outward  Mode  of  Adminiftration,  is  the 
Application  of  Warer  to  the  Body,or  waftiing  the  Body, 
or  Part  of  it,withWater.  So  much  is  manifeftly  required 
in  all  fuch  Paflages  in  facred  Writ,  as  fpeak  of  Baptifra 
as  aa  outward  Walhi  ^g.     It  is  ftiled,  the  'wajhing  oj  IVa^ 

D      d      2  t&Ty 


404  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Cha  p.  VI 

ter^  Eph.5.26.  And  the  baptized  are  faid  to  have  their 
Sodies  wajhed  with  fure  Water^  Heb.  10.  22.  And  the 
Apoftle  Peter  diftinguifhing  between  the  outward  &  fpi- 
ritual  Part  of  Baptirm,or  between  the  outward  Sign  and 
the  Thing  fignified,  exprefles  the  outward  P sly t,l^y  putting 
away  of  the  Filth  of  theFlefh^  i  Pet.  :j.  2 1  .And  as  there  are 
feveral  Ways  of  doing  this,  either  by  pouring  of  Water, 
or  dipping  into  Water,  fo  there  is  nothing  exprefs  in  the 
New-Tellament  to  determine  the  Mode  this  Way  or  the 
other  :  but  for  ought  that  appears  to  the  contrary,  it  is 
left  to  the  Difcretion  of  Chnfl:ians,as  a  Matter  of  Liberty 
and  Indifferency.     To  this  Purpofe  let  me  obferve, 

II.  That  the  Greek  W^ord  (which  is  retain'd  in  our 
Tranflation  and  moft  others)  Baptizo,  to  baptize^  (about 
which  our  Adverfaries  make  fuch  a  Noife  and  BuftJe)  is 
never  ufed  in  Scripture  in  fuch  a  Senfe  as  obliges  us  to 
underftand  dipping  to  be  thereby  meant,  but  only  a  walh- 
ing  in  general,  without  determining  the  Stnit  to  this  or 
that  Mode  of  WaQiing  •,  tho'  it  be  fometimes  found  in 
Greek  Authors  to  fignify  to  immerge  or  dip^  as  the  Sub- 
jed-Matter  that  happens  to  be  fpoken  of  requires,as  well 
as  to  wafh  by  pouring,  or  Sprinkhng.  And  hence  Cri- 
ticks,  and  Lexiographers,do  commonly  render  it  indiffe- 
rently by  the  Words,  Immer^o^  Lavo^  to  dipy  to  wafh  ; 
yet  when  the  Difpute  is  about  the  Ufe  of  a  Word  in  a 
Scripture-Inftitution,  all  Reafon  requires  that  we  ihould 
underftand  it  in  theSenfe  in  which  theScripture  conflantly 
ufes  it.  Now  where  ever  the  Word  occurs  in  the  New- 
Teilamentjit  does  not  neceffarily  require  the  Idea  of  Dip- 
ping to  be  affixed  to  it,  any  more  than  Affurion,butonly 
that  of  wafhing  in  general.  Hence  it  is  that  ourTranfla- 
tors,  have  rightly  rendred  the  Word  wafloing^  in  many 
Places  of  the  New^-Teftament ;  the  fame  Word  in  the 
Original, which  they  eifewhere  render  Baptifm^  or  baptize. 
It  is  obferv'd  of  the  Pharifees  and  all  the  Jews^except  they 
w^fj  their  Hands  oft^  they  eat  noty  Mar.  7.  3.  The  Word 
there  ufed  is  the  common  Word  for  wajhing.  Now  this 
wafliing  of  the  Hands  before  Dinner,  is  eliewhere  called 

the 


Chap.  VI.  of  Infant  Baptifm.  405 

the  baptizing  of  the  Man, in  the  Greek.  Luk.  11.38.  The 
Pharifee  that  invited  our  Saviour  to  dine  with  him,  mar- 
velled that  he  had  not  fir  ft  wajhed  {ebaptifthee  \  that  he  was 
not  baptized)  before  Dinner,  Which  plainly  jQiews,  that 
the  Words  wafljing  and  baptizing^  are  indifferently  ufed 
for  one  and  the  fame  Thing  ;  and  that  fo  as  to  leave  the 
Mode  of  wafliing,  whether  by  AfFufion  or  Dipping,  un- 
determined ;  for  the  Hands  are  as  commonly  wafh'd,  by 
pouring  Water  on  them,  as  by  dipping  them  into 
Water.  And  thofe  that  are  flcill'd  in  this  Sort  of  Criti- 
cifm,  do  alTure  us,  that  theJewsCuftom  was  to  wafh  their 
Hands  by  AfFufion.*  Again,  it  is  faid  of  the  Jews,  that 
when  they  come  from  the  Market  except  they  wajh  ^  can  mee 
baptifontaiy  except  they  are  baptized)  they  eat  not  :  And 
many  other  Things  there  be  which  they  have  received  to  holdy 
as  the  wajhing  of  the  Cups  &  Pots,  and  brafcn  Veffels^and  of 
Tables  (or  rather  of  Beds,  as  the  Word  more  properly  ^\g- 
nifies)  the  Word  in  the  Greek  is,  baptifnicus,  the  Baptifms 
of  Cups  &c.  Mar.  7.  4.  Now  there  is  not  one  of  thefe 
Things  that  neceflarily  requires  dipping,  in  order  to  its 
being  wafhed,which  may  as  well  be  done  by  pouring  out 
Water.  But  feme  of  thefe  Things  feem  neceflarily  to 
require  wafhing  by  AfFufion  :  for  who  ever  vvafhes  Ta- 
bles or  Beds,  by  dipping  or  plunging  them  into  Water  ? 
Therefore  it  is  evidently  a  Miftake  to  fay,  that  Baptifm 
requires  Dipping,  in  its  Signification,  when  us'd  of  any 
other  Wafhing,  befides  the  Sacramental.  And  to  make 
this  more  evident,  I  fhall  add  one  Inftance  more  :  The 
Writer  to  the  Hebrews  fpeaking  of  the  legal  Purificati- 
ons which  were  typical  of  the  faving  Virtue  of  the  Blood 
of  Chrifl  in  purging  the  Confcience  from  dead  PForks,  men- 
tions divers  fVa/hings,  Heb.  9.  10.  In  the  Greek  it  is, 
Diaphorois  baptifmois  ;  divers  Eaptifnis,  or  ("as  the  Vv^ord^ 
fignify)  different  Sorts  of  Baptifms  :  Now  there  were 
two  Sorts  of  Wafhings  under  the  Law,  Bathing,  and 
Sprinkling ^O'C  AfFufion  -,  and  both  are  included  under  the 
Term  Baptifms  here  ufed  :  Wn:iich  is  a  plainDemonftra- 
D  d  3  tio.i 

♦  Vid.  Pel.  Synopf.  in  Mark  7.  4, 


4c6  A  Bejence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  VL 

tion  that  the  facred  Writers  ufe  the  Word  Baptifm  for 
JVajhin^_^\x\  its  large  and  general  Signification,  as  inclufive 
of  the  feveral  Ways  of  performing  it,  or  in  fuch  a  Senfe 
as  does  not  determine  it  to  this  or  the  other  Mode.  Or, 
if  we  fuppofe  the  Baptifms  in  the  Text  lalf  men ci one  J,  to 
have  Reference  to  one  Mode  rather  than  another,  the 
Context  clearly  carries  it  forSprinkling.  For  the  facred 
Writer*  in  the  ioUowing  Words  giving  an  Example  of 
thefe  PVafmngs^  or  Baptifms^  inlfances  only  in  thofe 
legal  Purifications  that  were  performed  by  Sprinkling. 
>^.  13.  For  if  the  Blood  of  Bulls  and  of  Goats^and  the  Jfhes 
of  an  Heifer^  fpri72kling  the  Unclean^  fantlifieth  to  the  puri- 
fying of  the  Flefb^  &c.  Which  Words  have  a  plain  Refe- 
rence to  the  Waters  of  Separation  ;  in  which  the  A  flies  of 
a  red  Heifer  were  mingled  ;  which  were  appointed  to  be 
fprinkled  on  One  that  was  ceremonially  Unclean  •,  of 
which  we  read  at  large,  Numb.  19.  per  tot.  Whence  it  is 
manifeft,  that  a  Walhing  or  Purification,  perlorm'd  by 
Sprinkling,  is  in  the  Senfe  and  Language  of  holy  Scrip- 
ture,a  true  and  properBaptifm.  So  far  is  the  Word  bap- 
tize^ or  Baptifm^  from  determining  theSenfe  toDipping, 
that  in  the  Scripture  Ufe  and  Signification  of  it,  it  is  ne- 
ver hmited  to  that  Mode  ;  but  the  Term, we  fee,  is  ufed 
therein  of  fuch  Purifications  as  are  exprefs'd  by  the  other 
Mode  of  Sprinkling.  Nothing  therefore  can  be  conclud- 
ed in  favour  of  Dipping,  from  the  conftanc  Ufe  of  the 
Word  baptife  in  the  New-Teftament. 

III.  ChriftianBaptifm  is  very  frequently  exprefs'd  in  the 
New-Teflament,  by  the  general  Term  ot  lVafhmg\  which 
may  be  applied  to  anyKindof  Wafhlng  •,  as  appears  from 
the  Places  I  have  cited,  wherein  Baptifm  is  called  the 
wafhing  of  IVater^  and  having  the  Body  wafhed  with  pure 
Water  •,  and  it  is  called  the  wafhing  of  Regeneration^  Tm. 
3.  5.  And  the  Thing  fignified  is  often  denominated  from 
the  outward  S\gx\,zPFalhing^Cleanftng,Purging.A6i. 22. 16. 
Arife  and  be  baptized^and  wafh  away  thy  Sins,  i  Cor. 6. 1 1. 
J'e  are  wafhed^  ye  are  fan5iified^  &c.  Eph.  5.  26.  That  he 
might  fant'iify  Q  clecnje  it  with  the  wafhing  of  Water.  2  Per. 
"-     •         -  1.9. 


Chap.  VI.  of  Infant-Baptiim.  407 

I.  9. — Hath  forgotten  that  he  v:as  purged  from  his  old  Sins, 
i.  e.  in  Baprifm.  So,  by  what  appears  trom  the  Wrirei^s 
of  the  Nevv-Teftament,  Baptizing  &  fVafljtng  are  ufed  by 
them  as  fynonymous  Terms.  Though  therefore  the 
Chriilian  Church  has  appropriated  the  tormer  to  fignifV 
the  firft  Sacrament  of  the  New-Tellament,  Vi^hich  mi«^hc 
have  been  as  well  exprefs'd  by  Ablution^  or  IVafhing^  yec 
the  former  is  of  no  greater  Force  to  infer  the  Neceffity  of 
Dipping,   than  the  latter. 

IV.  The  Analogy  to  the  Thing  fignify'd,  is  preferv'd 
in  both  Modes  of  Bapcifm,  which  is  Remifnon  of  Sins  iii 
the  Blood  of  Chriil,  and  Re:  ■  eneration  and  Sandification 
by  the  Spirit.  And  if  our  Obligation  to  a  fpirirual  Con- 
formity to  the  Death  &  Refurredion  of  Chrift,  in  which 
our  Sandlification  confitls,  (which  is  fpoken  of  in  one  or 
two  Places  of  the  New-Teflament,  as  one  Intent  of  Bap- 
tifm  :  Rom.  6.  4.  Col.  2.  12.)  be  fitly  reprefented  by  the 
Mode  of  Plunging,  yec  the  Application  of  the  Blood  of 
Chrift  for  the  RemifTion  of  Sins,  and  the  divinelnfluences 
of  the  Spirit  for  ourRegeneration  &  Sandification,  which 
are  the  great  Bleflings  of  divineGrace  fignlfied  inBaptifm, 
are  much  more  frequently  reprefented  and  exprefled  by 
Sprinkling  &  Effufion.  Heb.10.22. — Ha-ving  our  Hearts 
fprinkled  from  an  evil  Confcience^  (which  is  the  internal  and 
fpiritual  Part  of  Baptifm,anfwering  the  outward  Sign,  in 
the  following  Words)  and  our  Bodies  wafljed  with  pure 
Water,  i  Pet.  i.  2. — Through  the  Sdndfification  of  the  Spi- 
rit unto  Obedience.,  and  the  Sprinkling  of  the  Blood  of  Jefus* 
And  divers  other  Pailages  cited  in  the  Dialogue  to  this 
Purpofe.  And  the  Communications  of  the  Spirit  forRe- 
generation,  <^c.  are  in  the  common  Phrafe  of  Scripture 
called  tht  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit^  that  I  need  not  cite 
Texts.  So  that  if  any  Thing  be  argued  from  the  Ana- 
logy of  the  Sign  to  the  Thing  fignified,  for  the  Determi- 
nation of  the  outward  Mode  of  Adminiftration,  the  Ar- 
gument, we  fee,  mud  preponderate  in  Favour  of  Spi  ink- 
ling, or  pouring  of  Water  ♦,  though  it  be  granted  that 
lome  Part  of  this  Analogy  is  well  exprefs'd  by  the  Mode 
of  Dipping.  y.  Tbere 


40 8  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        Chap.  VI. 

V.  There  is  no  Example  extant  in  theNew-Teftamenc 
of  fo  much  as  one  Perfon,  of  whom  there  is  any  certain 
Evidence  that  he  was  baptized  by  being  plung'd  intoWa- 
ter.  All  that  is  pleaded  in  Favour  ot  it,  is  trom  Proba- 
bility only  •,  as  theAccount  given  us  by  the  facred  Hiflo- 
rian,  of  many  repairing  to  fome  River  or  Conflux  of  Wa- 
ter, where  they  were  baptized  \  and  their  going  down  to, 
and  coming  up  from,  or  out  of  the  Water.     But, 

(i.)  We  don't  read  of  one  Inftance  of  any  Perfon  who 
repair'd  to  a  River  or  Conflux  of  Water,  purely  on  the 
Defign  pf  being  baptiz'd  therein.  All  the  Inflances  of 
thofe  who  are  baptiz'd  in  Rivers  or  Brooks  belong'd  to 
the  Baptifm  o^  John  -,  there  is  but  one  Inftance  recorded 
in  the  Book  of  the  Aofs^  which  is  that  of  theEunuch  bap- 
tiz'd hy  Philip.  They  met  with  Water  occafionally  as  they 
travelled,at  the  Infl:ant  the  Eunuch  was  converted  to  the 
Faith  of  Chrifl  by  the  Preaching  of  Pbiltp.  Ad.  8.36. 
Here  was  no  going  to  Water,  with  a  Defign  of  being  bap- 
tiz'd. And  as  for  John^his  baptizing  in  Rivers, this  may 
be  accounted  for  from  theManner  of  his  Education  in  the 
Deferts  of  Judea  •,  where  he  very  much  confin'd  his  Mi- 
niftry,  in  Fulfilment  of  the  Prophecy  of  Ifaiah  concern- 
ing him.  The  Voice  of  one  crying  in  thelFtldernefSy  Mat.  3, 
1,3.  There  is  no  Intimation  in  facred  Writ,  that  thePeo- 
ple  repair'd  to  Jordan^  or  any  other  Places  of  Water  for 
the  Sake  of  being  baptized  in  them  :  But  they  repaired 
to  John^  to  attend  his  Minifl:ry,  and  many  were  brought 
thither  out  of  Curiofity,  as  our  Saviour  intimates.  Mat, 
II.  y.  And  having  chofen  his  Refidence  in  fuch  Places 
where  he  might  be  near  Water  for  the  Convenience  of 
baptizing  the  Multitudes  thatreforted  to  hisMiniftry,  not 
liaving  ('tis  to  be  fuppos'dj  any  other  Convenience  of 
Veilels  for  bringing  VVater,  in  fuch  a  Plare  as  the  Wil- 
dernefs,  thofe  that  embrac'd  hisDodrine  were  baptiz'd  of 
him  in  Jordan  and  other  Places  of  Water  :  but  the  facred 
Writersareentirelyfilent  as  to  theManner  of  his  baptizing 
them,  whether  by  plunging  their  Bodies  in  whole  or  in 
part  under  Waiter,  or  by  pouring  Water  on  their  Faces, 

In 


Chap.  VI.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  409 

In  the  Account  the  Evangelifts  give  us,  there  is  nothing 
that  makes  for  or  againil  one  Side  or  the  other,  in  the 
Controverfy. 

(2.)  What  is  related  of  fome,  their  going  down  into 
the  Water,  and  coming  out  of  it,  I  Ihaii  afterwards  have 
Occafion  to  fpeak  to  chat :  In  the  mean  Tim.e,  norhing 
can  be  concluded  thence,as  to  theMode  of  their  Baptifm. 
There  going  down  into  the  Water,  and  coming  up  frora 
it  was  one  Ihmg,  and  their  Baptifm  ar.other.  There  are 
many  learned  Psdobaptiils  ( 'tis  to  be  confefs'd)  who  do 
think  it  highly  probable,that  they  were  dipp'd.  But  none 
that  I  ever  knew  or  heard  o[,but  the  Antipasdobaptifls, 
do  confidently  conclude  h'om  thefe  Infbances,  that  it  is 
certain  they  were  fo  •,  whereas  nothing  is  more  certain,thai* 
that  tjiofe  who  draw  this  Conclufion,  go  beyond  their 
Evidence.  But  it  it  be  thought  probable  that  John  bap- 
tiz'd  by  Dipping,  it  mull  be  thought  equally  probable, 
if  no:  much  more  fo,  that  others  were  baptiz'd  by  AfFu- 
fion  ,  as  thofe  three  l^houfand  at  Pentecoft^Paul^Cornelius 
his  Company,  the  Jailor  and  his  Ho u (hold.  It  can^t  ra- 
tiorally  be  thought  by  any  one  who  confiders  theHiftory 
of  taefe  Baptifms,that  thefe  feveral  Pcrfons  were  dipp'd  : 
(Bit  thefe  Initances  willoccur  again) therefore  it  is  unac- 
coL'ntable,  that  any  fhould  be  fo  pertinacious  as  to  think 
no  other  Way  of  Baptifm  lawful,  but  that  of  Dipping. 
I  fl-ali  only  add, 

71.  Were  it  certain  (as  it  is  not)  that  Dipping  was  the 
mdl  common  Mode  of  Baptizing  in  the  Apoftles  Times, 
ye;  it  will  by  no  Means  follow  that  that  is  the  only  law- 
fuMode,but  that  the  other  of  Affufion  is  full  as  valid  an 
A^miniftration  of  the  Ordinance.  For  the  Inftitution  re- 
quring  Baptifm  orWafhing  with  W^ater,has  not  determi- 
ned the  Adminiflration  of  it  to  this  or  that  Mode,  but 
(aswas  (hewed)  left  it  as  a  Matter  of  Indifferency.  There- 
foe  thofe  in  Judea^  and  other  warmer  Countries,  where 
Bahin,is  were  io  common  and  cuftomary  a  Thing,mighc 
reafonably  be  fuppos'd  tromInclination,Cu{lom&Choice, 
to  leceive  their  Baptifm  by  Dipping.     But  then,  what 

I  Authority 


4IO         A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  VI. 

Authority  has  their  Pradice  in  a  Matter  of  Liberty,  to 
bind  others  ?  WhatReafon  can  be  given  why  theirChoice 
and  Pradlife  fhould  debar  otherChriftians  of  theirLiberty 
to  choofe  the  other  Mode  ?  Thofe  P^dobaptifis  therefore, 
who  approved  dipping  in  Baptifm,  and  have  been  of 
Opinion  that  it  was  the  Pradice  of  the  primitiveChurch, 
do  yet  (Iron^y  alTert  the  Liberty  of  the  Chriftian-Church 
to  make  ufe  of  eitherMode,  as  in  aMatter  of  Indifference, 
according  to  theVariation  of  Times,  Places,  and  Circum- 
flances  •,  *  holding  thatChrift  has  no  where  diredly  com- 
mandedPlunging  orSprinkling,but  oniyBaptizirg,which 
may  be  performed  in  either  of  thefe  Modes.  And  it  is  in 
great  Wifdom  and  Kindnefs  that  our  blefiedLorc  has  ap- 
pointed the  Sacrament  of  Initiation  into  his  Religion,  in 
fuch  general  Terms,  as  baptizing  or  wafhing  v/ith. Water 
in  the  Name  of  the  Father,  the  Son, and  the  holy  Ghoif, 
leaving  the  Mode  of  Adminiftration  free,  that  it  might 
be  the  better  accommodated  to  the  State  &CircumJtances 
of  particular  Perfons  of  all  Ages,  and  of  all  Nations  of 
the  Earth.  Since  bis  Religion  was  defign'd  to  be  a.i  urii- 
verfal  Religion  \  it  was  proper  that  the  initiating  Rite 
lliould  be  of  fuch  a  Nature  as  might  be  adapted  t^  the 
Circumftances  ol  all  Nations,  that  all  Sorts  of  Pe-fons 
might  have  free  Accefs  to  the  Means  of  their  Salvaiion,  j 
thofe  in  Infancy  and  Childhood,  as  well  as  thole  of  dder  i 
Years  j  thofe  of  a  weak  and  ricklyConftitution,as  wdl  as 
the  healthy  and  ftrong,  and  that  in  the  feveral  Courtries  J 
and  Climates  of  the  Earth,  and  in  the  feveral  Seafors  of  1 
theYear,  the  coldeft  as  well  as  warmed.  Whereas  to  lave 
limited  the  Ordinance  to  the  Mode  of  Plunging  uider 
Y\/"ater,  would  have  been  a  reftrainingthat  vifible  Synbol 
of  the  Chriltian  Religion,  to  thofe  only  who  are  abe  to 
bear  it,  without  endangering  theirHealth  :  Which  ferns 
not  conoTUOUS  to  a  religious  Inilitution,  v>^hich  wai  de- 
fign'd for  all  Nations  ot  Men  v^^ithout  Limitation. 

The  foregoing  Obfervations,    which  cannot  be  liirly 
contradided,  do  fufnciendy  obviate  all,   or  molt  olDr. 


m 


*  Vid.  Zanch.  Opera.  Tom.  IV.  P.  493^'  494* 


Chap.  VI.  ^/ Infant-Baptifm.  411 

aWs  Objedions  in  this  Chapter  ^  for  all  that  he  has  ad- 
vanc'd  relating  to  the  Mode  of  Adminiftration,  in  Op- 
pofition  to  the  Dialogue,  is  either  gian'cd,  and  nothing 
to  the  Purpofe,  or  doubtful  and  iinprov'd  ;  or  cMz  are 
plain  Miilakes,  and  to  be  correded. 

Firjl.  It  is  granted  that  the  V/ord  Baptizo^  fignifies  to 
Dip  or  F lunge ^  as  well  as  to  110 ajh  ;  and  this  is  not  con- 
tradiclory  to  the  Dialogue,  which  admits  that  the  Word 
fometimes  fignifies  to  dip^  P-3 1-  And  I  make  no  Doubr, 
it  is  often  ufed  in  thatSignification  inClaffic Authors  \  but 
not  always :  it  has  alfo  with  them  the  more  gei;eral  Signifi- 
cation ofAblution,&  even  of  Perkifion  orSprinklinp-.  And 
therefore  ourAuchor  might  have  fparedhisPains  in  maki no- 
Citations  from  the  Lexicons^  and  Criticks,for  four  Pao-es 
together,  to  fliew  the  Meaning  of  the  Word  Baptizo^  i^ 
to  dip  ;  fuch  as  Scapula^  Stepbanus^Schrevelius.Leigh^  and 
others,for  the  Lexicons  •,  Calvin^  Beza^Sic,  for  tlKCriiicks  ; 
who  having  Regard  t)  the  Ufe  of  the  Word  in  Heathen 
Writers,give  it  this  Senfe  •,  yet  diere  is  none  of  them  that 
exclude  the  other  Senfe,in  which  it  is  alfo  ufed  by  Greek 
Writers,  (which  is  evidently  the  Scripcure-Senfe  of  the 
WordJ  even  that  of  Ablution  in  general,  or  that  deny 
this  alio  to  be  a  proper  Senfe  of  the  Word.  yea,moft  of 
thofe  whom  he  has  cited  render  the  W^ord,  Mergo^Lavo^ 
&c.  to  Dip^  or  Plunge^  to  make  wet^  to  wap  or  cleanfe  \ 
only  he  fays,  the  primary  Senfe  of  the  Word  is  toi)//>,and 
its  confequential  Senfe  is  io  IVafh  ;  P.  90.  If  his  Meaning- 
be,  that  Things  are  dip'd  in  order  to  their  being  wafh'd, 
I  grant  W^afhing  to  be  the  Confequence  of  Dipping,  and 
in  this  Refpedt  to  have  a  confequential  Senfe  ;  lor,  as 
Voffius  obferves,  ("cited  in  LeigFs  Crit.  Sacr.)  that  "  a 
"  Thing  is  wont  to  he  dip'd^or  ting'' d^t hat  it  might  bewafh^d^ 
'^  therefore  the  Word  is  ufed  for  fVafoing^^'  in  the  feveral 
1  exts  of  Scripture,  which  he  there  quotes.  But  if  he 
means,  its  proper  Senfe  is  to  Plunge  ;  but  to  wa/h  is  an 
improper,  or  figurative  Senfe  of  the  Word  ;  he  is  confuted 
by  the  feveral  Lexicons  he  has  been  at  the  Pains  to  cite ; 

which 


41  a         A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  VI. 

whic^  equally, and  indifferently  render  it,to  dip^to  wajh  j 
and  make  wajhing  as  natural  and  proper  a  Senfe  of  the 
Word,  as  dipping.  It  is  ufed  in  an  improper,  and  meta- 
phorical Senfe,  when  applied  to  fignify  great  i\ffli^ions, 
and  the  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit.  But  I  cannot  but  ob- 
ferve  Dr.  GilPs  Partiality  to  his  own  Side,in  quoting  Mr. 
Leigh's^  Critica  Sacra,  (which  is  a  Colledion  of  the  mod 
eminentCriticks  in  the  Greek  Language)  when  he  fallens 
upon  that  PafTage  only  •,  '*  The  native  and  proper  Signi- 
«*  fication  of  it  is  to  dip  into  Water,  or  to  plunge  under 
Water ;"  And  Cafaubon,  Bucanus\  Bullinger,  and  Zanchy, 
are  cited  as  agreeing  to  this  Senfe,  who  were  all  Paedo- 
baptifts,  and  never  meant  to  deny  the  other  Senfe  of  the 
Word  :  But  he  conceals,  or  paffes  over  in  Silence,  what 
went  before  in  that  Author :  viz.  "  The  Word  Baptize, 
*'  tho'  it  be  deriv'd  from  {Bapto,)  iingo,  to  dip,  or  plunge 
<*  into  the  Water,  and  fignifieth  primarily  fuch  a^Kind 
•'  of  wafhing  as  is  ufed  inBucks,whereLinnen  is  plunged 
»«  and  dipt  -,  yet  it  is  taken  more  largely  for  any  Kind  of 
*'  wafhingjrinfing  or  cleanfing,even  where  there  is  no  dip- 
"  ping  at  all."  For  which  he  citesDr.F(f^//y,who  confirms 
it  by  a  Number  of  Texts  out  of  the  New-Teftament ; 
and  adds,  "  Chrift  no  where  requireth  Dipping,but  only 
*'  Baptizing',  wh\chWord(asHeJychius,Stepbanus,Scapula, 
*'  and  Budceus,  the  great  Mailers  of  the  Greek  Tongue, 
*'  make  good,  by  very  many  Inftances  and  Allegations, 
*'  out  of  Claflic  Wrirersj  impurteth  no  more  thanAbki- 
*'  tion,  or  Wafhing.** 

Our  Author  fays,  Scapula  ''  makes  dipping  ox  plunging 
"  to  be  the  firll  &  preferable  Senfe  of  the  Words.'*  P.  9 1 . 
Tho'  he  as  plainly  gives  it  the  other  Senfe  pleaded  for. 
But  be  fure,  dipping  mud  be  the  preferableSenfe  withDr. 
Gill,  and  his  Party  j  otherwife  that  Mode  of  Baptizing 
will  lofe  much  of  its  Reputation.  But  why  fhould  not 
the  Scripture-Senfe  of  the  Word,  be  the  preferable  one, 
efpecially  in  theUfeof  a  facredlnftitution  .^  Which  Senfe, 
as  it  refufes  not  Dipping,  fo  it  will  admit  Sprinkling  or 
AfFufion,  and  either  Way  the  baptifmal  Waihing  may  be 

perforaicd. 


Chap,  VL  of  Infant- Baptlfm.  41^ 

performed.  But  when  he  tells  us,  there  is  **  no  proper 
"  Wafhing  but  what  is  by  Dipping  •,"  one  would  hardly 
think  him  in  earneft,  being  fo  liable  to  be  confuted  by 
the  common  Senfe  &  Cuftom  of  Mankind,  that  to  fpend 
Words  for  the  Proof  of  the  contrary,  would  appear  fu- 
perfluous,  and  trifling,  as  it  is  even  ridiculous  for  a  Man 
ferioufly  to  aflert,  there  can  be  no  properWafhing  but  by 
Dipping.  P-93.  He  refers  his  Readers  toOthers,for  the 
Ufe  of  the  Word  in  Greek  Authors  •,  by  the  Inilances  of 
which  he  fays,"  It  appears  to  have  the  Senfe  of  Dipping, 
and  Plunging,  and  not  of  Pouring  or  Sprinkling  ;"  and 
particularly  to  Dr.  Gale,  I  might  alfo  refer  the  Reader 
to  other  Writers  in  this  Controverfy,  who  produce  plain 
and  numerous  Inftances  from  thofe  Greek  Authors  of  the 
other  Senfe  of  the  Word,  which  he  oppofes,  and  even  to 
Dr.  Gale  himfelf  j  for  feveral  ot  his  own  Inftances  have 
been  made  to  appear  to  make  againft  him,  and  to  iignify 
even  Perfufion,  or  Sprinkling.  But  that  Gentleman  has 
found  out  aWay  to  fecure  himfelf  from  being  ever  worft- 
ed  in  any  Conteft  of  this  Nature,  which  is,when  he  meets 
with  the  Word  which  in  the  genuine  Meaning  of  the  Au- 
thor is  ukdiov  pouring,  fprinkling^QX  ftaining  with  Afper- 
/ton,  to  fly  to  a  figurative,  or  metaphorical  Senfe  of  the 
Word,  and  to  ftand  to  it  with  Confidence,  that  the  Word 
in  its  native  Signification  intends  Dipping  only.  *  At  this 
Rate  a  Man  may  be  invincible  in  maintaining  the  groflTeft 
Abfurdities. 

But  to  what  Purpofe  is  it  to  puzzle  the  illiterateVulgar 
/about  the  Ule  of  the  Word  in  profane  Authors,  when  we 
are  difcourfingof  theSacramentalUfe  of  it,about  which  wc 
have  fufBcientLight&Diredion  given  us  in  the  holyScrip- 
tures  themfelves  ?  I  ihall  therefore  go  on  with  our  Author. 

Secondly^  To  confider  the  Ufe  of  the  Words  Baptize^ 
and  Baptifm  in  the  New-Teftament,and  what  he  excepts 
againft  theExplication  given  of  them  in  the  Bialo^ue. 

The  Firji  Example  mentioned,  is  the  Application  of 
the  Word  Baptize^  to  the  Defcent  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  on 

the 

*  GaU\  Keil  on  ^V/'s  Hid.  Letter  3. 


41^-         A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  VL 

the  Apoftles,  and  on  Cornelius  and  his  Company.  Our 
Saviour  promifing  to  fend  the  Spirit  to  his  Dircipies,faid, 
John  truly  baptized  with  Water^  but  ye  fhall  he  baptized 
with  the  Holy  Ghojt.  Adl.  1.5.  comp.  A6t.  11.  15,  16. 
The  Author  of  the  D;W^^f<^  juftly  obferves,  That  "  it 
*'  can't  be  pretended,  that  here  was  the  leaft  AJlufion  to, 
*'  or  Refemblance  of  Dipping  or  Plunging^  in  this  Ufe 
*'  of  the  Word."  {Dial.  F.  32.)  i.e.  It  can't  with  any 
Shew  of  Reafon  be  pretended.  In  Oppofnion  hereunto. 
Dr.  Gill  fets  up  the  Sentiment  of  the  learned  Cafaubon^  sl 
very  great  Critick  (ht  fays  j  in  the  Greek  Tongue,  who, 
it  fcems,  was  of  Opinion,  (  as  quoted  by  our  Author ) 
that  Regard  "is  had  in  this  Place  (  viz.  A(St  i.  5-  y  to 
**  the  proper  Signification  of  the  Word  -,  for  (  he  adds  ) 
**  Baptizein^  is  to  immerge,  fo  as  to  tinge,  or  dip,and  in 
*'  this  Senfe  the  Apoftles  are  truly  faid  to  be  baptized  ; 
*'  for  the  Houfe  in  which  this  was  done,  was  filled  with 
**  the  Holy  Ghoft,  &c."  This  indeed  is  an  Inftance 
that  (hews  how  fomelearnedCriticks,  arefometimes  forc'd 
to  ftrain  their  Fancies  to  make  Words  chinck  to  their 
pre- conceived  Opinions.  But  by  the  Leave  of  this  very 
learned  Critick,  let  me  obferve.  That  before  he  or  any 
other  Man  can  pretend,  there  was  the  lead  Regard  orRe- 
femblance  (in  this  Difpenfation  of  the  Spirit  )  to  Dipping 
or  Plunging  f which  he  calls  the  proper  Signification  of 
the  Word)  it  fhould  be  made  to  appear,  that  the  Houfe 
was  firft  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghoil,  before  the  Apoftles 
enter'd  into  it :  Whereas,that  extraordinary  Prefence  and 
Mapifeftation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  was  vouchfaPd  sitPen- 
Ucojl^  only  in  Relation  to  the  Difciples  of  Chrift  ;  and 
thofe  miraculous  Symbols  of  the  Prefence  and  Power  of 
the  divine  Spirit,  are  faid  to  come  from  Heaven^  and  to 
///  all  the  Houfe^  where  they  were  Sitting.  A^.  1.  2.  And 
the  Holy  Ghojl  is  faid  10  fall  upon  Cornelius  hisCompany. 
Chap.  10.  44.  Now  that  which  comes  from  Heaven, and 
that  which  falls  upon  Men, may  be  properly  faid  to  carry 
in  it  a  Refemblance  of  pouring  Out  or  Sprinkling  ;  buc 
with  no  Shew  of  Reafon  or  Propriety  can  they  be  faid  to 

be 


Chap.  VI.  of  Infant- Baptifm.  415 

be  dipp'd  or  plung'd  into  it.     Can  a  Man  without  a  ma- 
nifefl:  Ablurdity  be  faid  to  be  dipp'd  in  aShower  of  Rain 
falling  ever  fo  copioully  upon  him  ?  If  he  may,  then  the 
Paedobaptifts  dip,  when  they  make  Ufe  of  the  Mode  of 
Afperfion,  or  AtfLifion  :  And  then  what  do  our  Adver- 
faries  contend  for,   about   the  Mode  of  Baptifm  ?  The 
/giving  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,   is  compared  to  the  pouring 
;  down  Water  from  above,  and  exprefs'd  in  fuch  Language 
I  in  Scripture,  lia.  44.  3.  I  will  four  Water  upon  hmthat 
[is  Tbirfty^ — I  will  pour  my  Spirit  upon  thy  Seed,  (ffc.  And 
I  this  is  what  our  Saviour  calls  a  Baptizing^  or  I?eing  bap- 
;  tized  with  the  Holy  Ghoji,     No  Man  therefore,  that   is 
I  not  wedded  to  an  Hypothefis^  nor  fuffers  his  Imagination 
ito  get  the  Start  of  his  Reafon,  can  pretend  there  is  the 
■leait  Similitude  or  Refemblance  between  the  pouring  out 
of  theSpirit,and  Dipping  or  Plunging.  Nor  confequent- 
j  ly  that  the  Phrafe  of  baptizing  with  the  Holy  Ghoft ^    car- 
j  rics  any  Allufion  to  it.     Nay,  this  very  Phrafe   fo  often 
ufed  by  the  evangelical  Writers,   makes  it  evident  that 
they  had  never  the  Idea  of  Plunging,  as  neceiTarily  con- 
nected with  the  Word  Baptize^  or  Baptifm  ;  but  rather 
that  of  Sprinkling,or  pouring  of  Water  :  For  let  us  fup- 
pofe  Plunging  ro  be  meant  by  Baptizing,  how  ftrained  ? 
How  harih  and  unnatural  mud  the  Expreffion  be  ?  How 
dilTonant  from  common  Senfe,  to  fay,  Te  fhall  be  plunged 
i  with  the  Holy  Ghoft ^  or  ye  fhall  be  dipp'd  or  plunged  into 
the  Holy  Ghofi  ?  But  fuppofing  they  meant  no  more  by 
the  Expreffion,  than  fimply  an  Ablution,  or  Afperfion, 
there  is  the  greatefl:  Fitnefs,.  and  Propriety   in  it,   and  it 
is  agreable  to  Senfe,  and  the  Rules  ol  Grammar,   to  fay, 
l^e  ftoall  be  fprinkled^  purged^ov  wajhed  with  the  HolyGho^^ 
plentifully  poured  out  upon  you.     And   this  Manner  of 
Speech  being  conftantly  parrellel'd   with  that  other  of 
baptizing  with  Water ^  and  govern'd  by  it  ("Mar.  i.  8.  / 
indeed  {{diysjohn)  have  baptized  with  Water  ;  but  he  ftoall 
baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghoft.  So  Matt,  3.  n.  Luk.  3. 
ib.A^f.  ir.  16.  )  It  is  natural   hence   to   conclude,  the 
facred  V/riters  by  this  Phrafe,meant  only  aWaihing  with 

Watef. 


4l6         A  Defence  of  the  Divine  R'tght         Chap.  V/ 

Water.  And  it  is  fo  far  from  favouring  the  Notion  of 
Dipping  being  necelTarily  implied  in  Baptizing^  that  if  it 
mull  be  underftood  to  connote  the  Mode  of  performing 
it,  that  ot  fprinkUng  with  Water  (lands  fairer  for  Admif- 
fion,  than  that  of  Plunging,  which  the  Propriety  of  the 
ExprefTion  will  fcarce  admit. 

Secondly^  Another  Inllanceof  the  Word,  relates  to  the 
Sufferings,  Crucifixion,  and  Death  of  Chrifl,  which  is 
called  a  Baptifniy  Mar.  lo.  38.  Luk.  12.  50.  Now  if  it 
be  afk'd,  What  Refemblance  or  Allufion  can  there  be  to 
Dipping,  or  Plunging,  in  Chrifl's  Crucifixion,  in  "  his 
**  being  buffeted,  fpit  upon,  and  lifted  up  on  theCrofs." 
In  Anfwer  hereto.  Dr.  Gill  obferves,  P.  95.  ''  That  the 
**  Sufferings  of  ourLord,arefometimes  exprefs'd  by  deep 
**  Waters,  and  Floods  •,  and  he  is  reprefented  as  plung'd 
•'  into  them  and  covered,  and  overwhelm'd  with  them." 
And  to  this  Purpofe  applies,  Pfal.  6g.  i,  2.  ne  Wafers 
are  come  into  my  Soul,  Iftnk  in  deep  Aiire —  /  am  come  inta 
deep  IVaters,  &c.  'Tis  acknowledged,  that  great  Afflic- 
tions, and  Calamities,  are  often  fignified  in  Scripture  by 
Waters  and  Floods,  Waves  and  Billows,  whether  they 
come  over  a  Man,  or  he  finks  into  them  •,  and  fo  thofe 
figurative  ExprefTions  may  be  underflood  to  fignify  the 
Sufferings  of  the  Meffias  in  general, as  ihtPfalmifi  (doubt- 
lefs)  in  the  Ufe  of  them  primarily  intended  his  own.  But 
the  Queflion  flill  remains.  What  Refemblance  do  the 
true  and  proper  Sufferings  and  Crucifixion  of  Chrifl, 
bear  to  Plungrins:  ?  Or  what  meater  Refemblance  doSuf- 
ferings  in  general  bear,  to  a  Man's  finking  in  deep  Wa- 
ters, than  to  Waves  and  Billows  going  over  him  ?  As  the 
Expreflion  is  Pfal.  42.  7.  And  to  take  down  his  Boafl, 
that  "  Immerfion  mufl  more  fidy  exprefs  the  Sufferings 
•*  of  Chrill,  than  a  Word  which  only  fignifies  Pouring, 
*'  &c."  I  might  eafily  produce  ^numerous  Inllances, 
wherein  great  Sufferings  are  fignified  by  the  Metaphor  of 
Effufion  :  And  e^n  the  Sufferings  of  Chrift  are  thus  ex^ 
prefs'd,  in  Pfal.  22.  which  contains  a  prophetical  Com- 
plaint  of  the  Sufferings  of  the  Meffias.     This  Metaphor 

occurs, 


Chap.  VI.  of  Infant-Baptifm,  417 

occurs,  i\  14.  I  am  poured  out  like  V/ater.  And  the  In- 
fliction of  the  Curfe,  which  our  Lord  underwent  for  us, 
{Gal.  3.  13-)  ^s  exprefTed  by  the  fame  Metaphor  of  Effu- 
fion,  Dan.  9.  11.  'ihe  Curfe  is  poured  upcn  us.  And  we 
read  in  the  fame  Chapter,  oi  thtConfumntaticn  poured  upon 
the  Defolate.  And  how  often  are  the  fore  Judgments  of 
God  upon  Man  reprefented  under  the  figurative  Expref- 
fions  of  his  Anierov  IVrath  poured  out  upon  them  ?  And 
the  pouring  out  ot  the  Vials,  \x\Rev.  16.  iignify  the  greac 
Calamities  brought  upon  the  World  ;  and  that,  by  the 
Ordination  of  Eieaven.  So  that  this  Metaphor  of  Effu- 
fion^z-xxnt%  in  it  aReprefentation  of  theSufferings  of  Chrifc 
as  ordained  of  God^  rather  more  full  and  fignincant,  than 
that  dilmmerftcn^  ox finkini  into  deep  H'aters.  But  I  lay 
no  Strefs  on  thele  figurative  Expreifions  ;  but  fhall  only 
obferve,  that  Dr.  Gill  comparing  thefe  tv/o  Modes,  with 
Regard  to  ChritVs  Sufferings,  very  unfairly,  and  untruly 
infiauates,  as  if  we  held,  that  "  the  Word  only  fignifies 
"  Pouring,  or"  (as  he  is  pleas'd  to  term  it )  "Sprinkling 
*'  a  few  Drops  of  Water."  Whereas  we  affirm,  not  thac 
it  fignifies  only  Pouring,  or  Sprinkling  ;  as  on  the  other 
Hand,  we  deny  that  it  fignifies  ^w/y  Dipping.  What  we 
maintain,  is.  That  it  imports  ^nAblutlon  in  general, which 
may  be  performed  either  Way  -,  and  nothing  can  be  ga- 
thered for  determining  the  Senfe  to  Dipping,  from  any 
Allufion  thereto  in  the  Sufferings  of  Chrifi:,  rather  thaa 
to  Affufion. 

A  third  Infiance  refers  to  Baptifn^  or  Wafoing  in  a 
proper  Senfe,  which  is  that  Text  betore  quoted,  M^r.7.4, 
Where  the  Evangi^liil:  obferves  of  the  Pharifees^  and  all 
the  Jews^  thac  when  they  come  from  the  Market^  except 
they  Wafh^  {Gr.  are  Baptized)  they  eat  not.  And  that  a* 
mong  other  Traditions,  they  hold //:'^  IVafJmtg.,  (  Gr,  the 
Baptifms)  ofCups^  and  Pots^  Brazen  Fejfels^  and  of  "Tables 
or  Beds.  Dr.  Gill  hySy  in  Aniwer  to  this.  That  "when 
*'  the  Pharifees  came  from  Market,  or  any  Court  of  Ju- 
'•  dicature,  if  they  touch'd  any  common  Perfons,or  their 
"  Cloaths,  reckoned  ihemfeivcs  unclean  j  and  according 

E  e  "to 


4 1 8.  A  Defeyice  of  the  Divine  Right  C h  a p .  V I. 

"  to  the  Tradition  of  the  Elders,  were  to  immerfe  them- 
"  felves  in  Water,  and  did,"  But  (i.)l^  is  not  laid  in 
the  Text,  thzt  if  i bey  touch' d  any  common  Perfons^^cr  their 
Cioaths^  they  were  Baptized  or  Wafhed  :  But  only  that 
the  Pharifees,  and  all  the  Jews^\.e,  the  generahty  of  them, 
when  they  come  from  the  Market^  wafli  themfelves  before 
they  eat :  Which  they  might  do  upon  a  Suppofition  of 
fome  Pollution  contra6led,  whether  knowingly  or  igno- 
rantly,  or  as  Dr.  Lightfoot  obferves,  "Being  ignorant  and 
"  uncertain  what  Unclcaniiefs  they  came  near  unto  in 
''  the  Market",  -f  This  was  tho't  a  fufficient  Reafon, 
by  that  fuperflitious  People,  for  wafhing  their  Hands, 
when  they  came  from  it,beiore  they  eat.  ButC2.)  When, 
he  fays,  that  by  the  Tradition  oj  the  Elders^  they  were  (on 
this  Occafion  )  to  immerfe  themfdves  in  fVater,  and  did  : 
He  is  contradided  by  thebeiliVlaftersof  theJewilliLearn- 
ing.  Dr.  Lightfoot  denies  that  the  plunging  of  the  whole 
Body  is  here  underftood  ^  and  makes  it  appear  from  the 
Rabbies^  That  "  fuch  Plunging  is  not  uied,  but  when 
"  Pollution  is  contradled  from  the  more  principalCaufes 
"  of  Uncleannefs."  Among  thelnilances  whereof,which 
he  recites  from  Rab,  Sol,  1  here  is  none  that  reaches  the 
prefentCafe.  "  But  for  (mailer  UncleannelTes  it  was 
''  enough  to  c!ea;nfe  the  Hands."  *  And  Dr.  Pocock  af- 
firms, That  in  Cafe  of  the  greater  Pollutions,  the  Im- 
merfionor  Plunging  of  the  whole  Body  v/as  oi  no  Ad- 
vantage, with  Rcfped  to  their  com,mon  Meals, v/hich  are 
no  where  forbidden  to  the  Unclean  ;  and  in  order  to 
which,  the  Waf^.ingof  the  whole  Body  is  no  where  re. 
quir'd  by  the  Jewifh  Mailers,  bur  of  the  Hands  only,  ^j; 
But  the  Text  fpeaks  only  of  fuch  Wafliings  as  were  ob- 
hvv''d  by  the  jews  before  Meats.  •  And  be  fure,  theLaw 
of  God  never  debarr'd  thofe  that  were  ceren-ionially  Un- 
clean, from  their  necefTaryF'ood,  till  they  were  cleanfed  : 
Which  in  fome  Cafes,  was  not  till  fevcn  Days.  And 
whatever  our  Author  pretends  in  his  Expofition  of  this 
Place,  the  Writer  lait  mentioned,  wiiom  ail  learned  Men 

have 

f  Hor.  Heh.  t^Talmul  ia/l/.j/r.;^.     *  Void.   %  Koi.Mi/uLC^^.q.    : 


Chap.  VI.  cf  Infant-Baptifm.  419 

have  in  high  Ffteem,  for  his  Skill  in  the  oriental  Lan- 
guages, and  in  the  ancient  Cuftoms  of  the  Jews,  (having 
applied  his  Studies  chiefly  that  Way)  and  who  was  under 
no  fuch  Biafs  as  our  Author,  by  being  engag'd  in  aCon- 
troverfy  of  this  Nature,  has  aflured  us,and  largely  prov'd 
from  the  Rahbies^  that  the  Jews  Cuftom  in  -vvafhing  their 
Hands,  was  by  pouring  ot  Water,  or  by  Water  running 
out  of  a  Veflel  orCiftern,  through  Cocks,  or  Pipes,  rnade 
for  that  Purpofe  \  and  that  the  Jews  might  wafli  their 
Hands  both  Ways,  either  by  pouring  Water  on  them,  or 
by  dipping  them  -,  and  for  this  Reafon  the  Word  here 
ufed  by  Mark  comprehends  both  :  Fc  r  though  (he  ob- 
ferves)  ihtY^J ox^^baptizes  (bai^does  indeed  efpecially  agree 
tolmmerfion,  yet  that  it  does  not  fignify  tbaf  only,  or 
neceflfarily,  plainly  appears  from  that  Vv^hich  occurs, 
Luk.  II.  38.  The  Pharifee  marvel' d  that  he  had  not  fir fi 
wajhed  (or  as  we  have  obferved,  it  is  in  the  Original)  was 
not  firft  baptiz'd5&c.  f  Where  nothing  elfe  can  be  meant 
but  the  wailiing  of  his  Hands  ;  v/hichZ.^/y^^  exprcfles  by  a 
Word  which  fignihes  his  being  baptizd.  And  the  fame 
Word  here,  in  Mark^  can  have  no  other  Reference,  as  is 
plain  from  the  Context,  v/hich  mentions  the  Pharifecs 
faulting  the  Difciples  of  Chrift/t/r  eating  with  nnwafien 
Hands  ♦,  which  gave  Occafion  for  thi^  Remark  of  the 
Evangelift.  And  it  is  a  Thing  not  to  be  conceiv'd,  or 
imagin'd,  and  fcarce  pofiible,  that  thofe  who  lived  near 
the  Market,  who  have  oftenOccafion  to  go  into  it,fhould 
as  often  as  they  return,  uncloath,  and  immerfe  themfelvcs 
in  Water  before  they  eat.  So  that  this  Notion  of  Dr. 
.Cill^  appears  in  itfelt  incredible,  as  it  is  difprov'd  by  good 
Authority. 

He  afks,  P.  96.  "  As  forCups,Pots,&  brazenVefTels, 
*^  what  other  Way  of  wafhing  of  them  is  there,  than  by 
•'  dipping,  or  putting  them  intoWater  ?"  AnyoldWo- 
man  might  have  told  him,  they  may  as  conveniently  be 
wafh'd  by  pouring  Water  on  them,  or  into  them,  and 
rinfing  and  rubbing  them  •,  and  fome  Sorts  ot  Pots  and 
Vefiels  can*c  coriVeniendy  be  wafli'd  any  otherWay.   He 

E  e  2  adds 

t  Pocock,  Ibid, 


420  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right      Chap.  VI. 

adds  "  in  this  Way  (ivz.by  dipping)  uncleanVelTels  were 
*•  to  be  wadied  according  to  the  Law."    And  he  refei^s 
to  Lev. II. 0^2.  where  we  find,    that   Rules  are  given  for 
the  cleanfmg  of  whatfoever  Veliel  or  Thing  was  under  a 
Ceremonial  Pollution,  by  the  falling  ol  the  Carcafe  of  an 
unclean  Animal  into  it,  that  any  Veffel  of  l^Vood^ov  Rai- 
ment^ or  Skin^  or  Sack.,  was  by  divine  Appointment  to  be 
put  inro  Water  ;  every  Earthen  Veffel  was  to  be  broken  •, 
hutFeffeis  of  Brafs^ov  of  any  other  LV]ettal,that  might  en- 
dure the  Fire, were  according  to  that  Law,  (Num. ^1.2^.) 
to  pafs  thro'  the  Fire  •,  and  to  be  purified  with  the  Waters 
of  Separation  •,  which  was  done  by  Sprinkling^'Hum.  19.18. 
So  that  if  the  brafen  Fejfeis  here  mentioned  by  Mark.,  had 
a  Baptilm  according  to  the.  Law  •,  that  could  be  only  by 
Sprinkling  :    for  other  wife  they  v>^ere  not  to  pafs  thro'  the 
Y/aterat  all,  or  to  have  Water  applied  to  them  •,  but  to 
go  thro'  the  Fire,  and  to  have  the  Waters  of  Separation 
jprinkled  upon  them.     But  this  was  a  Method  of  clean- 
fing  comnianded  by  God  for  Things  Ceremonially  Un- 
clean :  and  what  Relation  has  this  to  the  Baptifms  in  the 
Text,which  were  the  fjperftitious  Inventions  &  Traditi- 
ons of  theElders,by  theObiervance  whereof  Chrift  cha^g'd 
the  Pharifees,with /^^/^/??^  void^  or  rejetlingtbe  Command- 
msntsofGcd.,  i'.  8,9.  Therefore  Dr.  GV//  is  Ilrangely  be- 
fide  his  l>xt,  when  he  adds,  that  "  even  Beds,  Pillows, 
"  and  Bolfters,  vv'hen  they  were  unclean  in  a  Ceremonial 
"  Senfe  \  ani  not  as  thisAuthor  puts  it,evcry  Fim.e  they 
*'  lay  or  fat  upon  them,  were  to  be  v/afh'd  bylmmerfion, 
"  or  dipping  them  into  Water."    Be  it  fo  ;    but  can  he 
think  that  ourSaviour  rebukes  thePharifees  for  obferving 
v,'harGod  had  comjmanded  inCafe  of  CerenionialUnclean- 
nefs  ?    If  not, why  might  not  the  Cafe  which  theEvange- 
lill  refers  to,  be  as  thisAuthor  puts  it  .^  The  facred'Fext 
fecms  plainly  to  infinuate,  that  i\\^\x 'Tables.,  or  6f J/,  had 
thefeVv^ailiings  from  the  Superftition  of  thejevvs, as  often 
as  they  had  Occafion  to  ufe  them,    efpecialiy   at  Meals  : 
and  thefe  are  termed  Baptifens'.  And  I  fee  noReafon  why 
thcfe  vValhings,  tho'  pcfiormcd  by  Sprinkling,  being  fo 

otyen 


Chap.  VI.  of  Infant-Baptifm.    •  42,1 

ofcen  repeated,  might  not  as  truly  reprefent  their  Super- 
ftition,  as  dipping  them  all  over  in  Water.  In  fine,  as 
I  willingly  grant,  that  Ibmeof  the  Things  mentioned  in 
the  Texr,  might  probably  be  wafn'd  by  dipping,  fo  our 
Adverfaries,  to  deal  candidly,  m.ull  acknowlege,  that  as 
to  others,  there  is  no  Probability  at  all  that  they  were  fo 
wafhed.  And  I  readily  fubfcribe  to  Dr.  Ltghtfooi\  Opi- 
nion, which  he  gives  as  theRefult  of  hisObfervations  from 
theRabi^ies :  "TheWord  therefore  Baptifmous^  Wafbuigs^ 
ffaith  he)  applied  to  all  there,propcrly  and  fcridly,  is  not 
to  be  taken  of  Dipping  or  Plunging,  but  in  Refpedi:  of 
fome  Things  of  Walhing  only,  and  in  Refpe6t  of  others, 
of  Sprinkling  only.* 

K  fourth  Text  relates  to  the  PafTage  of  the  Ifraelites 
through  the  Red-Sea,  under  the  Cloud,  which  is  called 
a  Baptifm  \  of  which  the  Apoftle  difcourfes,  i  Cor.  10. 
1,2.  /  would  not  that  yejh-ould  be  ignorant ^how  that  all  cur 
Fathers  were  under  the  Cloudy  and  all  paJJ}d  thro*  the  Sea, 
And  were  all  baptifed  unto  Mofes  in  theCloud  and  in  theSea. 
It  is  not  denied,  that  there  was  in  this  Cafe,  a  true  and 
proper  Ablution  with  Water  from  the  Cloud,  in  which 
they  were  baptiz'd  ;  which  wa3  therefore  a  true  &  proper 
Baptifm  -,  tho'  alfo  a  typical  one,  and  holy,cxtraordinary* 
and  miraculous.  And  divers  good  Interpreters  are  of 
Opinion,  that  the  Cloud  which  pafs'd  from  the  Front  to 
the  Rear  of  the  Ifraelitifh-Hoft,  {Exod.  14.  ig.)  when  ic 
pafled  over  them, let  fall  fomeDrops  of  Water  upon  them, 
in  a  greater  or  lefs  Qiiantity  •,  and  our  Author  quotes 
Mr.Gataker,  giving  his  Sentiments  to  that  Purpofe.  To 
which  that  PaHage  of  the  Pfalmift  is  underftood  to  refer, 
Pfal.  68.7,8,9.  O  God^  zvhen  thou  went  eft  forth  before  thy 
People^  when  thou  didft  march  thro''  the  IFildernefs,  Selah. 
The  Earth  [hook^  the  Heavens  alfo  dropped  at  the  Frefeme 
of  God. — Thou^  0  God^didft  fend  a  plentiful  Rain,  whereby 
thou  didft  confirm  thine  Inheritance  when  it  was  weary. 
Now,  if  when  the  People  were  under  the  Cloud,  in  their 
paiTmg  thro', the  Sc2i,theHeavens  dropped^  and  the  Clouds 

E  e  3  /f?;/ 

*  Hor.  Hebr.  &  Talmud,  in  Lpc. 


422  A  Bd^ence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  VI. 

fent  down  a  'plentiful  Rain^  then  the  Baptifm  they  are  faid 
to  receive  in  the  Cloudy  and  in  theSea^muH  beunderftood 
in  a  proper  &  literal  Senfe  :  Who  then  can  even  imagine, 
that  they  received  it  in  any  otherWay  than  bySprinkiing 
orAffufion  ?  Could  they  be  dip'dinto  theCloud,orplung'd 
into  the  Rain  ?  Yet  ourAuthor  contends,  that  it  carried 
*'  a  much  greater  Refemblance  tolmmerfion."  But  heie 
he  is  forc'd  to  fet  his  imaginative  Faculty  to  work  ;  and 
he  had  Need  of  it  -,  his  Reafon  rightly  ufed,  could  never 
help  him  to  this  Conclufion.  Let  us  fee  how  he  goes  to 
work.  Ftrft  he  will  confider  "  the  Sea  &  the  Cloud  toge- 
"  ther  ;"  and  the  Ifraeli(:es,he  fays,  "  had  the  Waters  on 
each  Side  of  them,  and  the  Cloud  over  them  ;  fo  that 
they  were  as  Perjons  immers'd  in,&  covered  withWater." 
They  were  as  Perfons  immers'^d  %  But  were  they  really  im- 
rners'd,  as  they  were  really  Sprinkled  ?  The  Egyptians 
we  know,  Pharaoh  and  his  Hofl,  were  plunged  indeed. 
Exod.  15.  1  o. — The  Sea  covered  them^they  fank  as  Lead  in 
the  mighty  Waters.  This  v/as  a  proper  and  literal  Plung- 
ing :  But  was  there  any  Refemblance  in  the  Baptifm  of 
the  Ifraelites  to  this  Plunging  .^  So  far  from  this,  that  in 
Oppofition  to  the  plunging  of  the  E  yptians^  the  facred 
♦Hiltorian  obferves,that  theChildren  of  Ifrael  walked  upon 
dry  Ground  in  the  midji  of  the  Sea.  Exod.  14.  iS^ig.Chap. 
15.  19.  So  the  Ifraelites  Baptifm  was  neither  a  real 
Plunging,  nor  a  Refemblance  of  Plunging.  Or^Secondfyy 
He  will  confider  them  apart,  and  fo  they  were  baptized, 
he  fays,  "  in  the  Cloud,  which  when  it  palled  over 
them,  let  dov/n  a  plentiful  Rain  upon  them;"  (it  is  agreed 
then,  that  there  was  a  real  Afvufion  of  Water  from  the 
Cloud ;  he  adds)  "  whereby  they  v/ere  in  fuch  a  Conditi- 
''  on,  as  if  they  had  been  dipp'd  all  over  in  Water,  &c." 
Bur  their  being  wet,  or  waihed  with  Wearer,  determines 
fioihing  of  the  Mode.  Our  Inquiry  is.  In  what  Way 
were  they  made  vv^ec  all  over,  though  as  wee  as  if  they 
had  been  dipped  ?  A  real  Sprinkling,  or  pouring  down 
Rainfrom  thcCloud  that  covered  them,is  acknowiedg'd  ^ 
snd  becaufe  (he  fuppofes)  they  were  hereby  made  thoro'ly 

wet. 


Chap.  VI.  c/ Infant-Baptifm.  423 

wet,  and  were  in  fuch  a  Condition  as  if  they  v/ere 
Dipped  i  there! ore  he  would  inler,  that  their  Baptifm 
bare  a  greater  Refemblance  of  Immerfion,  or  Plunging 
into  Water.  So  a  fanciful  Man  may  imagine  the  Anti- 
podes to  walk  Topfey-Turvy^v^hh  theirHeads  downwards ; 
and  may  argue  tor  it  with  as  good  an  Appearance  of 
Reafon,  as  Dr.  Gill  does  for  the  Mode  of  Baptifm  by 
Plunging,  from  the  Ifraelites  being  wafhed  with  Water 
from  the  Cloud.  Again,  he  fays,  *'  they  might  be  faid 
"  to  be  Baptized  in  the  Sea,  when  as  they  pafTing  thro* 
*'  it,  the  Waters  {landing  up  above  their  Heads,  they 
"  feem'd  as  if  they  were  immers'd."  But  how  does  he 
know,  the  Waters  flood  up  above  their  Heads  ?  Mofes  only 
tells  us,  the  Water i  were  a  Wall  unto  them  on  the  Right 
Hand^  and  on  the  Left^  Exod.  14.  22.  to  defend  them  a- 
gainft  their  Enemies  attacking  them  in  the  Flank.  But 
fuppofing  they  were  congeard,(as  the  Exprefilon  isExod, 
15.  8.  J  on  each  Side  to  a  great  Fleight :  Does  a  Man 
pafTing  between  tv/o  Mountains  of  Snow  and  Ice,  feem  as 
as  if  he  were  plunged  inSnow  ?  But  be  this  as  it  v/ill,here 
is  but  a  feeming  Immerfion  at  bed,  but  a  real  Sprinkling 
or  Affufion.  He  adds  yet,  "  the  Defcent  of  the  I/rae- 
"  lites  into  the  Sea,  where  they  feem'd^  as  though  they 
"  were  buried  in  theWaters  of  it,  and  their  afcent  agairi 
*'  out  of  it  on  the  Shore,  have  a  very  great  Agreement 
"  with  Baptifm  by  Immerfion."  But  that  which  fpoils 
all  thefe  hne  Fancies,  is,  that  one  Obfervation  often  re- 
peated in  theHiftory  of  Mo/es  j  That  theChildren  of  Ifrael 
went  on  dry  Ground^  through  the  midft  of  the  5^^,Exod.  14. 
165  22,  29.  &  15  19.  Nor  is  it  faid,  that  they  defcend- 
ed  into  the  Sea,  or  alcended  out  of  .it,  but  that  the  Sea 
was  divided  into  Parts,  and  the  Children  of  Jfrael  walk'd 
in  the  raidft  of  it  on  dry  Land,  In  which  there  was  not 
the  leafl  Refemblance  of  Baptifm  by  Immerfion,  what- 
ever there  might  be  in  fome  Men's  Imagination  of  a  Bu- 
rial and  Refurre-flion. 

The  Fijth  and  lafl  Text,  is  that  which  I  cited  before, 
to  Ihcw  that  the  f?xred  Writers  could  not  uuderftand  Im- 

E  e  4  Kierfion 


424         A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  VI. 

merfion  or  Plunging,  as  necefifarily  included  in  theSigni- 
iication  of  the  Words  5^///2;^,  and  Baptifm^  which  is, 
Jieb.  9.  lo.  where  the  inipired  Writer  reterring  to  the 
typical  Rites  oi  Alofes  his  Law,  inilances  in  divers  Wafh- 
ings  :  The  Words  in  the  Greek  (  'twas  obferved  )  fignify 
different  Baptifns.  I  obferve,  when  our  Author  has  lealt 
to  fay  inWay  of  Argument,  he  is  moft  confident  and  pre- 
rernptory  in  his  Affertions.  So  here,  to  this  Inftance  he 
j-eplies,  "  that  the  Afnes  of  anHeifer  fprinkling  theUn- 
*'  clean"  (referring  to  ;)^.  13.  in  which  the  infpir'd Writer 
inftances  in  one  Kind  of  the  legal  Baptifms  )  *'  were  fo 
*"  far  from  being  the  principal  Fart  ot  the  Jewifh  Waih- 
"  ings  or  Baptilrns,that  it  was  noPart  at  all  :  nor  is  this 
^'  mentioned  by  the  Apoftle,  as  any  Exemplification  of 
"  them,who  underilood  thefeXhing  better."  But  I  An- 
fwer,  If  the  Apoftle  may  be  allow'd  to  explain  his  own 
Meaning,  it  feems  he  underftood  thefeThings  better  than 
Dr.  Gill.  That  the  Reader  may  judge,  let  him  but  ob- 
ferve the  Connedlion  ot  theApoftle's  Difcourfe,  in  Hcb.g. 
where  he  undertakes  to  explain  the  typical  Difpenfa- 
tion  of  theOld-Teftament,  fhewing,  that  the  ancient  Jew- 
ifh Sacrifices  and  Rites,  were  Figurative  and  Symbolical ; 
among  which  he  mentions  their  various  Wafloings^ox  Bap- 
iifms^  and  fhews  they  were  all  infufEcient,  of  themfelves, 
to  purify  the  Souls  and  Confciences  of  Men,  from  the 
Guilt  and  Defilement  of  Sin,  or  to  make  thofe  that  per- 
formed thofe  corporal  Services  perfe5f^as  pertaining  to  the 
ConfciencCy  f,  9,  10.  but  were  defign'd  as  Types  andPre- 
Jigurations  of  the  Application  of  the  Blood  of  Chrill, 
which  hath  a  real  and  abundantEfficacy  for  thatPurpofe. 
And  to  fiiew  how  far  the  Antitype  excelled  theXype, 
he  inftitures  a  Comparifon  between  thofe  legal  Sacrifices 
and  Wafiiings,  and  the  Blood  of  Chrift,  as  to  the  Vertue 
and  EfHcacy  proper  to  each,  /.  13,  14.  All  the  Ver- 
tue  of  the  legal  Sacrifices  and  Walhings,  he  makes  to 
extend  no  farther  than  an  external  Sandification.  f,  13. 
Jfthe  Blood  of  Bulls  and  of  Goats,  and  ibe  AfJiCs  of  an  Hci- 
J er^  fprinkling  the  y^^i'/f^/zjanc^ifieth  to  the  puriiying  of 

the 


Chap.  VI.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  425 

the  Flefh :  &c.  where  it  is  evident,  he  refers  to  the  6"^- 
crifices  and  IVafJoings  he  had  mentioned  but  two  Verfes 
before,  giving  a  particular  Example  of  eachKind.  Their 
Gifts  and  Sacrifices^  f.  9.  are  referki  to,  and  expref- 
fcd  by  the  particular  Inftance  of  the  Blood  of  Bulls  and  of 
Goats  \  their  divhs  fVafJoings^  or  different  Sorts  of  Bap^ 
tifms^  or  Purifications,are  as  plainly  refer'd  to  in  the  par- 
ticular Inftance  of  oneSort,  viz.  TheSprinkling  the  Unclean 
with  the  Afbes  of  an  Heifer^  or  the  Water  of  Separation, 
(as  it  is  called,  Numb.  19.  13  J  in  which  the  Aflies  of  a 
red  Heifer  were  mingled.  Whence  he  argues,  the  fu- 
per-eminentVertue  and  Efficacy  of  the  Blood  ofChrifi^  to 
purge  the  Confcience  from  dead  Works ^  ver.  14.  i.  e.  from 
the  Defilements  of  Sin,  which  bring  Pollution  andDeath 
on  the  Soul  •,  called  dead  W^orks,  inAllufion  to  the  par- 
ticular Uncieannefs,  (for  the  purging  whereof,  theAfhes 
of  an  Heifer  were  appointed  )  which  was  contraded  by 
the  Touch  of  a  dead  Body.     Hence  it  is  evident, 

(i.)  That  the  Sprinkling  of  the  Water  of  Separation 
was  one  Kind  of  the  Jewifh  Wafhings  orPurifications  by 
Water  •,  and  to  deny  this,  is  to  make  the  Apofrle's  Dif - 
courfe  impcrfecl  and  incoherent,and  to  enerva  e  theForce 
of  hisArgument, which  was  defigned  to  prove  the  Infuffi- 
ciency  of  all  the  legal  Sacrifices ^3.nd  all  the  legal  PFafhings^ 
to  cleanle  the  Confcience  from  the  Defilements  of  Sin, 
which  is  done  by  the  Blood  of  Chriil  only,  in  which  all 
thofe  Types  had  their  perfed  Accomplifhment,  and  the 
typical  Defign  of  each  was  fully  anfwered.  And  as  the 
Blood  of  Bulls  and  of  Goats  are  put  by  a  Synecdoche.,  as  an 
Exemplication  of  all  their  Sacrifices  •,  fo  the  fprinklivg 
of  the  Unclean  with  the  AfJpes  of  an  Hefer^  in  the  Water 
of  Purification,  is  by  a  like  Figure  put  for  all  the  leo-al 
Wafhings.  If  by  this  Sprinkling,theApoftle  meant  not 
an  ExempHfication  of  their  divers  Wafliings,  he  had  fail- 
ed in  one  Part  of  his  Argument  -,  v/hich  was  to  fhew  the 
Imperfection  and  Infufficiency  of  all  the  legal  Purificati- 
on^ or  Baptifin5,eirher  to  purify  or  pacify  the  Confcience, 
which  only  the  Blood  of  Chrilt  could  do, which  was  pre- 
figured 


426         A  "Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  VL 

figured  by  them.  If  thefe  be  not  underdood  by  the 
Sprinkling  of  the  Unclean^  as  a  Specimen^  the  Apoflle  does 
not  (hew  the  fuper-eminentVirtue  of  theBlood  of  Chrift 
above  the  XtgdMVafhin^j  :  when  at  the  fameTime,  he  al- 
ludes to  them  in  defciibing  the  Efficagy  of  Chrift'sBlood 
in  purging  the  Confclence  frora  dead  Works,  So  that  what 
is  faid  of  theAntitype,n-!ay  ferve  to  fettle  the  true  Mean- 
ing of  the  Type  •,  and  it  follows, 

(2.)  That  this  fprinkllng  of  theUnclean, mentioned  by 
the  Apoftle,  was  one  of  the  moft  eminent  of  the  Jewifh 
Wafhings  or  Purifications  *,  as  appears  from  his  making 
Choice  of  this  Inilance,  to  prove  the  Preheminence  of  the 
Chriftian  Purification  by  the  Blood  ol  Chrift,  above  all 
the  legal  Wafhings.  Otherwife,  a  cavilling  Jew  might 
objeft  with  as  much  Reafon  as  Dr.  G/7/,  that  tho'  the 
Sprinkling  of  theAlhes  of  an  Heifer  extended  no  further 
than  the  purifying  of  the  Flejh^  yet  they  had  greaterWafh- 
ings  appointed  by  the  Law  of  Mofes^  as  when  they  bath- 
ed themfelves,  and  dipped  their  whole  Body  over  Head 
and  Ears  in  Water,not  leaving  fo  m.uch  as  the  'Tip  of  their 
Utile  Finger  unwailied  j  and  by  thefe^ajew  might  fay,they 
were  thoroughly  cleanfed  from  Sin, and  rendred  accepta- 
ble to  God.  Now  what  had  the  Apoflle  to  Anfwer,  but 
that  he  knew  better,  and  had  inftanc'd  in  the  principal 
of  their  Purifications  ^  And  he  might  eaiily  have 
prov'd  it.  For  (i.)  TheAfhes  of  an  Heifer  in  the  Water 
of  Separation  is  called  byGod^aPurif  cation  forSinyNumb. 
19.9.  Which  is  never  iaid  of  any  other  of  the  Wafliings 
or  Bathings  of  thejews.  (2.)  The  Uncleannefs  for  which 
this  Sprinkling  vv'as  appointed,  was  contracted  by  fomc 
of  the  principal  Cauies  of  Uncleannefs  •,  as  by  the  Touch 
of  a  dead  Body,  or  of  a  Bone,  or  of  the  Grave  of  a  dead 
Man  :  Whereas  Bathing  in  Water  was  requir'd  inCafe  of 
leflfer  ceremonialPollutions  -,  even  thcPrieils  that  had  the 
Over-fight  of  the  Ceremony  of  burning  the  Heiter,  }l\y. 
He  that  burned  her,  :f\  8.  H>z  that  gathered  up  theJjhes, 
^.10.  as  alio  he  that  fprinkled  theWaterof  Purificnrion, 
}^.  19.  21.  were  all  to  bath  themfelves  in  Water,  being 

under 


Chap.  VI.  cf  Iiifant-Baptifna.  427 

under  aSort  of  typicalUncleannefs  •,  tho'  it  is  hard  tocon- 
ceive,  what  Pollution  they  could  contracl:,by  doing  what 
God  had  commanded  to  be  done,  in  order  to  the  clean- 
fing  of  others.  (3.)  In  other  legal  Pollutions,  the  puri- 
fying themfeives  with  common  Water,  was  fufiicient,buc 
in  this  Sprinkling  for  the  purifying  of  theUnclean, there 
was  requir'd  the  Solemnity  and  Ceremony  of  burning  a 
red  Heifer,  preparing  the  Allies,  and  putting  running 
Water  into  them  :  Ail  which  fpeak  it  to  be  the  greater 
Purification.  (4..^  The  Unclean,  for  whofe  purifying 
this  Preparation  was  made,  were  a  longer  Time  in  clean- 
fing,  than  thofe  who  bath'd  themfeives  in  Water,  who 
were  unclean  but  "till  the  Evening,/.  19.  He  foall  be  clean 
at  Even  :  But  he  that  was  to  be  cleanfed  by  fprinklino- 
of  the  Water  of  Separation,  was  in  hisUncleannefs  fevea 
Days,  and  not  to  be  thoro'ly  purified  before  the  fe^^enth 
Day,  /.  11,12.  He  that  tcucheth  the  dead  body  of  any  Man 
Jhiill  be  unclean  f even  Days  ;  he  jh all  purify  himfelf  with  /V 
on  the  third  Day^  and  on  thejeventh  Day  he  fhall  be  clean, 
P^rom  all  which  it  appears, that  this  was  the  moft  folemn 
Purification  of  the  Jews :  and  therefore  the  fitrcfi:  Inffance 
to  be  cholen  for  the  Apoftle's  Purpofe,  which  was  to  fee 
forth  the  excelling  Virtue  and  Efficacy  of  the  Blood  of 
Chrift  for  the  purging  away  Sin,  above  all  the  legal 
Wafhings.  And  therefore  Dr.  Gill  is  greatly  miflaken, 
when  he  fays,  P.  1 14.  '"  That  the  principalPurifications 
*'  of  the  Jews  were  perform'd  by  Immerfion.*^  But  he 
can  inftance  in  none  greater  than  this  of  Sprinkling  the 
Water  of  Separation  :  and  thatBathing  was  ufed  as  a  ieiTer 
Kind  of  Purification, appears  from  what  I  have  obferved. 
He  adds,  ijbid.)  "Even  the  Purification  by  theAfnesof 
"  a  red  Heifer  was  not  perform'd  without  Bathing  the 
"  Perfon  all  over  in  Water."  For  v/hich  he  cites, M/f/;^. 
19.  19.  And  this  (he  fays)  "  v/as  the  clofing&  finiihing 
*'  Part  of  it."  But  this  alfo  I  conceive  to  be  a  plain 
Miftake  ',  which  will  appear  if  the  Reader  will  turn  to 
thePlace,  Numb.i^,  18,19.  The  Words  at  large  are  thefe, 
Mnd  a  clean  Perfon  jloall  take  Hyjfop  and  dip  it  inJVat errand 

ffrinkle 


42  8         A  Defence  ef  the  hivim  Right         Chap. VI. 

fprinkle  it  upon  the  Tent^  (I'zz.ln  which  a  Man  dlech,>?-.i4.) 
And  upon  all  the  Veffels^  and  upon  all  the  Perfons  that  were 
there^  and  upon  him  that  toucheth  a  Bojie^  or  onejlain^  or  one 
dead^  or  a  Grave.  And  the  clean  Per/on  fljalljprinkle  upon 
the  unclean  on  the  third  Day,  and  on  the  feventh  Day  ;  and 
en  the  feventh  Day ^  he  fioall  purify  himfelf&  wafh  hisCloths^ 
and  bath  himfelf  in  JVater^  and  /hall  be  clean  at  Even.  It  is 
evident,  than  Diredions  are  here  all  along  given  to  the 
clean  Ferfon,  who  was  appointed  to  fprinkle  the  unclean  ; 
and  who  is  fuppos'd  to  have  contraded  fome  Degree  of 
ceremonial  Pollution,  by  being  employ'd  in  that  Sprink- 
ling, which  requir'd  a  Purification  by  Bathing;  in  like 
Manner  as  he  that  burned  the  red  Heifer,  and  thePriefts 
that  fprinkled  her  Blood,  were  to  bath  their  Flelli  in  Wa- 
ter. And  therefore  that  Claufe,  in  F>r.  19.  On  the  feventh 
Day  he  fhall  purify  himfelf,  and  wa/Jo  his  Cloths,  &:c.  refers 
not  to  the  unclean  Perfon  fprinkled  upon,  but  to  him  that 
perfoi-m'd  the  Sprinkling,  (i.)  I  ^ay,it  refers  not  to  the 
unclean  Perfon,  to  whom  no  fuch  Rite  was  prefcrib'd  for 
his  Cleanfing,  as  that  of  Bathing,but  only  Sprinkling  on 
the  third  and  on  the  feventh  Day  •,  nor  is.  the  Blame  of 
his  not  being  purifyed  imputed  to  any  Want  of  Bathing, 
but  to  the  Want  of  Sprinkling.  Ver.  13.  Becaufe  the  Wa- 
ter of  Separation  was  not  Jprinkled  upon  him.  Again,  the 
fame  Thing  is  repeated,  Ver.  20.  But  the  Man  that  fJo all 
he  unclean,  andfl.all  not  purify  himfelf,  that  Soul  fhall  be  cut 
off  from  among  the  Congregation. — T^he  Water  of  Separation 
hath  not  been  fprinkled  upon  him,  he  is  unclean.  Vv'hich  in- 
timates,that  the  whole  of  his  Purification  was  to  be  per- 
form'd  by  fprinkling  the  Water  of  Separation  :  No  other 
Rite  being  prefoibed,  and  the  Negled  of  no  other  Rite 
blamed.  And  (z.jThat  it  is  to  be  underftood  of  the  clean 
Perfon  that  performed  the  Sprinkling,  is  evident  beyond 
allDoubt,from  /.  2 1.  And  itpoall  be  a  perpetual  Statute  unto 
ihem,that  be  that fpr  inkle  th  theWater  cf  Separation  fhall  wafh 
hisCloihs,<kc.  And  therefore  as  to  what  ourAuthor  here  fays, 
P.99.  *'  Sprinkling  the  AQiesof  theHeifer,  &  the  wafhing 
''  or  bathing  tlie  Pvifon  in  Water,  which  wasbylnmier- 

"  fion. 


Chap.  VI.  cf  Infant- Baptifm.  429 

*'  rion,arc  fpoken  of  as  diftinfl  &  feparateThlngs,  Numb. 
"   19.  19."     I  grant  it,  becaufe  (as  1  have  made  to  ap- 
pear) they  were  diftin6l  and  fcparate  Perfons,    who  were 
the  Subjeds  of  each  of  thefe  Modes  of  Purification.   But 
fuppofing  the  Unclean, who  was  fprinkled  with  theWater 
\  of  Separation,  was  alfo  to  ufe  Bathing,  or  Immerfion,  as 
I  the  finifhing  Part  of  his  Cleanfing,   fwhich  I  think  can- 
I  not  be  prov'd  j  and  there  is  this  further  to  be  faid  inProof 
I  of  the  contrary,  that  the  Perfon  fprinkled  upon  was  to  be 
I  clean  on  the  feventh  Day,  i'.  12.  But  he  that  barh'd  his 
j  Flefh,  was  not  clean  until  the  Even,  jr.  19.  confequently 
i  not  'till  the  feventh  Day  was  ended  and  pafTedjand  there- 
j  fore  could  not  be  clean  on  the  feventh  Day  •,    whence  it 
feems  evident,that  his  being  fprinkled  on  the  feventhDay 
i  was  the  finifhing  Part  of  his  cleanfing.  J    But  fuppofing, 
I  fay,that  the  uncleanPerfon  was  to  make  ufe  01  Bathing 
as  well  as  Sprinkling,  yet  both  thefe  are  comprehended 
in  the  Apoitle's  divers  Wafliings  :  or  as  I  have  obferv'd, 
the  Words  are  in  the  Greek,  Diaphorcis  Baptifmois^  difi^e- 
rent  Baptifms,  ov  different  Kinds  of  Baptifms  ;  which  the 
Words  divers  IVajhmgs  in  one  Language,    do   not  fully 
Anfwer,if  they  be  interpreted  (as  they  are  fometimesufed) 
to  fignify  man)\  or  repeated  Wafnings.     Now  thefe  diffe- 
rent Sorts  of  VVafhings  or  Baptifms,    which  the    lacred 
Writers  fpeak  of,  were  perform'd  by  Sprinkling  or  AfTu- 
!  fion,  and  by  Dipping  or  Bathing.     The  WordD/^^^<?m.f, 
evidently  refers  to,    and  muli  be  underftood   to  include 
I  thefe  feveralSorts.     But  if  thcWord  Baptifms,mean  only 
I  Dippings,  rho'  fuch  Dippings  &  Bathings  inWarer,were 
I  oiten  repeated  and  enjoined  on  feveral  Sorts  of   Perfons, 
I  and  wich  Refpedl  to  feveral  Sorts  of  Things,^yet  who  will 
I  undertake  to  fhew  what  different  Sorts  of  Dippings  were 
I  us'd  .''  ThisSenfe  therefore  can't  beattributed  to  the  lacred 
\  Writer,  without  making  him  guilty  of  a  manifefl  Impro- 
I  priety,ia  fpeakingofrf'/^c'r^;;/D//)/>/;/^j.   And  as  to  thePro- 
j  prietyofthePhrafeofw^^/;;^^j5/>r/;7i://>^(rakingWafhing, 
I  Purifying,  and  Cleanfing,as  fynonimousTermsj  if  it  be 
j  no:  recv  ncileable  to  Dr.  GV/'s  Senfe,yet  agrees  very  well 

with 


43 o         A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  Vl 


with  the  Senfe  of  Scripture,  which  often  fpeaks  of  puri- 
fying by  Sprinkling. 

*«  However,  certain  it  is,  faith  he,  that  the  wafhing 
^  of  the  Friefts,  Levites,  Ifraelites,yeJ[els^Scc.'wh\ch  were 
*'  enjoin'd  by  the  Ceremonial  Law — were  done  by  put- 
"  ting  them  into  Water,  and  not  by  pouring  or  fprink- 
*'  lingWater  upon  them."P.99.  But  let  us  examine  this 
Matter  a  little  more  exadlly  :  That  thcPriefts  were  to  be 
waftied  at  their  firflConfecration,is  undoubted.  Thou  fl^alt 
waJJo  th^m  zvith  IVaier  •,  faith  God  to  Mofes^  Exod,  29.4. 
But  whether  this  was  to  be  done  by  the  Immerfion  ot  the 
wholeBody,or  by  the  AfFufion  of  Water,  is  not  faid.  But 
granting  the  iormer,  yet  it  is  evident,  that  the  ordinary 
wafiiing  of  the  Prieils,  when  they  went  into  the  Taber- 
nacle, or  approached  the  Akar  to  perform  theirMiniftra- 
tions,  was  not  of  the  whole  Body,but  only  of  theirHands 
and  Feet  •,  and  that  by  pouring  on  Water.  Exod. 30. 19. 
For  Am'cn  and  his  Sons  jh all  wafh  their  Hands  i^  iheirFeet 
thereat,  (i.  e,  at  theBrazen  Laver)  not  therein.  In  the  pro- 
ceeding T^i^r.  18.'  this  Direction  is  ^wtn^'Thoufbalt  make  a 
Lai'er  of  Brafs^and  his  Foot  alfo  of  Brnfs  to  wafh  ivithal^Scc. 
"  By  this  Difcription"  (faith  Dr.  M^illei,  in  his  Comment 
on  the  Placed  "It  may  be  gathered  that  theLaver  did  not 
"  (land  flat  upon  the  Ground,  but  was  reared  upon  his 
"  Foot  ;  and  confequently  it  bei  g,  fo  reared  up,  upon 
<•  his  Foot  or  Bafe,  the  Priefts  could  not  put  their  Feet 
"  therein  to  wafli  them."  But  they  wallied  at  thcBrazen 
Laver  by  letting  out  the  Water  by  certain  Spouts  upon 
their  Hands  andFeet,  not  by  dipping  them  into  it.  Thus 
the  Manner  of  their  wafhing  at  the  Laver  is  defcribed  by 
Dr.  Lightfoot^  from  the  Rahhins.  *  "  He  laid  his  right 
"  Hand  upon  his  right  Foot,and  his  left  Hand  upon  his 
"  leltFoot,and  iheCock  or  Spout  running  upon  them,  he 
*'  thus  flood  flooping  &  wafiied'hisHands  and  Feet  toge- 
*'  ther."AndtheOriginal  isftillmoreexprefsforthisSenfe, 
V.T9.  They  foall  wafh — Mimmennu^  from  t  hence  ^ox  cut  of  it. 
And  what  is  faid  of  the  molten  Sea,  in  Solomon's  Temple, 

which 

*  In  hisTreatlfe  oUheTmph,  See  his  Works.  Vol.  I,  P.  204  V 


IChap.  VI.  cf  Infant-Baptifm.  431 

which  ferved  for  the  fame  Uie,  2  Chron.  4.  6.  The  Sea 
was  for  the  Priefi  to  wajlo  in  \    Junius  &  Tremellius^  and 
divers  other  render,  to  wa/h  them/elves^  ex  eo,  out  of  it. 
And  the  learned  Vatahlus  oblerves,  *  "  That  the  Priefts 
"  did  not  walh  themfeives  in  the  Sea  ;,  but  with  Water 
"  which  they  drew  out  of  theSea  by  Pipes  or  Cocks,  they 
**  wadied  their  Hands   and  their  Feet."    Which  mult 
therefore  be  done  by  pouring  Water  upon  them.   And  as 
for  the  Levites,   their  Cleanfing  was  to   be   performed 
chiefly  by  Sprinkhng,  as  is  apparent,  from  Numb.8.6,7. 
•fTake  the  Leijites  from  amoug  theChtldren  of  Ifrael^i^  cleanfe 
them  :    and  thus  /halt  thou  do  unto  them  to  cleanfe  them  ; 
\fpinkle  Water  cf  Purifying  upon  them  &c.  And  the  other 
Ifraehtes  were  puriiied  from  ceremonial  Uncleannefs,  in 
fome   Cafes  by  Bathing,    or  Immerfion,  in  others    by 
Sprinkling,   as    has   been   fully    fliewed   of  thofe   thac 
were  unclean  by  the   Dead.     And  the   fame  may  be 
faid  of  unclean  VelTels,  fome  were  to  be  put  into  Water, 
others  had  nootherApphcaaon  of  W^ater,thanby  Sprink- 
ling, Numb.  31.23.    So  that  what  Dr.  Gill  here  afTerts, 
we  fee,  is  far  from  being  true,  that  the  wafliing,or  clean- 
fing, enjoined  on  thefe  feveral  Perfons  &  Things  by  the 
Ceremonial  Law,   was  done  only  by  putting  them  into 
Water.     He  tells  us  of  aRule  the  Jews  went  by  in  Wafli- 
ing  or  Bathing,  particularly,that  "  If  any  Man  dips  him- 
"  felf  all  over,  except  the  Tip  of  his  little  Finger,  he  is 
"  Hill  in  his  Uncleannefs :"  Then  I  hope,  our  AntipcE- 
dobaptiils  will  either  leave  oft  that  Piece  of  Mockery,  in 
pretending  a  NecefTity  of  the  total  Cleanfing  of  theBody 
by  Plunging,  while  yet  they  plunge  theirProfelytes  with 
aGarment  about  them  ;  and  that  they  will  conform  more 
pundually  to  theRule  of  thejews  in  dipping  Hark  naked, 
as  they  did  ;  who  held,  "that  it  was  noWailiing  for  that 
the  Wafhing  was  Null,  or  of  no  Account,  |I  ;  if  any 
*'  Part  of  the  Body  remain'd  cover'd,fo  as  that  the  Wa- 
ter could  not  come  to  it."  Or  eife  think  it  fufHcient 

thac 

*  In  ?oL  Synop.in  i  Reg.  7.  39.  \  Nullam  futant  Lctionem,  ft  cor- 
poris pars  ciiqua  teSia  znaneatf  quo  r.^ua  pervcnirf  m^usat,  Buxt. 
^^ynag.  Jud.  Cap.  II,     • 


432  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Rigfjt         Chap.  VI. 

thatWater  be  applied  to  theFacc  only,  either  by  Dipping 
or  AfFufion.  But  our  Qj-ieftion  is  no;  here,  how  thejews 
bath'd  themfelvcs  %  but  whether  the  Baptifms  theApoftie 
refers  to,  were  not  perform'd  by  SprinklJng,andAffurion, 
as  well  as  Bathing.  1  he  Affirmative  1  have  fully  mani- 
feited,andfhewedDr.G///'sExceptions  have  noFoundation 
of  Truth.  Yet  he  concludes  in  his  ufual  Strain,  ''From 
the  whole  (he  fays)  it  appears  that  the  Words  Baptize^ 
*'  and  Baptifms^xn  all  theplaces  n^ention'd,  do  from  their 
*'  Signification,  make  Dipping,  or  Plunging,  the  necef- 
'  fary  Mode  of  adminiftring  the  Ordinance  of  Baptifm.'* 
Whereas  I  am  perfuaded,from  the  whole,nothing  appears 
more  plainly  to  every  intelligent  Reader,  than  that  the 
Faculty  of  Reafoning  fairly  and  clofely,  does  not  always 
go  along  with  that  o\  talking  confidently.  There  is  not 
fo  much  as  one  of  the  Places  meation'd,v/hence  he  is  able 
to  infer,  with  the  leafl  Shew  of  Reafon,  that  the  Words 
Baptize^  and  i^^/zZ/^/^^necefTarily  include  Dipping  in  their 
Signification,  but  only  an  Ablution,  which  in  fomeCafe?, 
I  have  demondrated  muft  be  perform'd  by  Sprinkling 
or  Affufion  So  far  is  he  from  the  leaft  Proof  that  thofe 
^  Words  do,from  theirSignification  makeDippingorPlung- 
ing  the  neceilary  Mode  of  adminillring  the  Ordinance. 

Thirdly^  Our  Author  pretends  to  vinJicate  thofeTexts 
of  Scripture,that  he  thinks  favours  theModc  of  Baptifm, 
by  Immerfion.  Pie  calls  them  Inftances  of  it  ♦,  but  a- 
mong  all  the  Texts  alledg'd,  there  is  not  one  fmgle  In- 
llance  of  Immerfion  :  Nor  any  certainir'roofof  thatMode 
ol  adminiftring  the  Ordinance.  I  am  fufficiently  weary 
with  arguing  upon  fuch  Niceties,  and  trifling  Matters, 
as  thisDifpute  leads  One  to;  which  are  fcarce  worthy  of 
a  ferious  Debate.  All  that  deferves  Notice  under  this, 
and  the  follovvingHead,has  been  fully  anticipated  by  the 
Obfervations  I  laid  down  in  theBeginningol  i\\tChapter. 
Ifliall  only  make  feme  curforyRemarks  on  the  remaining 
Part :  And  under  this  Head  on  the  Pallagcs  in  theNew- 
Teftamcnr,  whence  he  pretends  to  argue  tor  theMode  of 
ImmerfiQii.     But  indeed  all  of  them  fignify  nothing  to 

his 


Chap.  VI.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  43^ 

his  Purpofe,  unlefs  he  cou'd  make  it  appear,  that  any  of 
thefe  Texts,  do  "  neceflarily  prove  that  any  one  Perlori 
**"  was  baptized  by  dipping,  either  by  J^.^?^  the  Baptid, 
*'  our  bieiled  Saviour^  or  his  ApoilJes."     And  this  mu(l 
be  his  Aim  in  Oppofition  to  the  Writer  of  the  Dialogue, 
who  had  denied  it.  Dial.  P.  34      But  his  Attempt  does 
\  butdifcover  his  Weaknefs  and  Impertinence. 
I      The  firil  Text  which  he  produces,   as  an  Inftance  of  - 
iBaptifm  by  Immerfion,  is,  Matth.  -i^.^.  And 'u: ere  baptized 
.  of  him  in  Jordan,   confejjing  their  Sins,     Here  let  me  ob- 
I  ferve,  that  it  is  not  true,  that  the  Writer  of  the  Dialogue 
"  makes  hisNeighbour  to  argue  on  this  Place, from  thefe 
"  Perfons  being  baptized,  to  their  being  dip'd  •,"  as  Dr. 
G/7/  has  reprefented  him,  P.  100.     But  he   makes   his 
Neighbour  to  put  the  Objedion  as  ftrongly  as  Dr.  Gi/l 
\  himfelf  doth  in  thefe  Words :  Dial.  ibid.    "  How  could 
''  they  be  baptized  in  Jordan A^  they  were  not  dipped  in 
"  thacRiver  ?"  He  had  complain'd  of  the  aforefaid Wri- 
ter, that  he  made  his  Neighbour  to  defend  the  Caufe   of 
Antipasd©baptifm,"in  a  very  mean  and  triflingManner." 
Now  I  refer  it  to  any  intelligent  &  candid  Reader,  even 
of  his  own  Party,  to  judge,   whether  in  the  Argument 
from  this  Text,  Dr.  John  GilU  has  faid  anyThing  of  more 
Strength  or  Weight,  than  this  weak  Neighbour  -,  when 
all  he  fays,  is  to  the  fame  EfFed,  in  a  tew  more  Words  : 
We  argue  he  fays,  ''  from  their    being  baptized  in    the 
"  River  Jordan  ;  for  why  ihould  John  choofe  the  River 
*'  Jordan  to  baptize  in,  and  baptize  in  that  River,   if  he 
"  did   not  adminiiler  the  Ordinance  by  Immerfion  ?" 
TheObjedion  I  think, is  very  mean  &  trifling,  by  whom- 
foever  made.    John's  making  Choice  of  J^r^^«,and  other 
PlacesofWater,fortheConvenienceof  Baptizing,hasbeea 
already  accounted  for,from  the  auftere  Manner  ot  his  Life, 
and  his  confining  himfelf  in  the  Performance  of  hisMini- 
ftry  to  the  Wildernefs.     And    the  Minifter's  Anfwer  in 
the  Dialogue^  is  fufficient,  and  ftands  good,  from  the  pa- 
reilei  Expreilions  of  the  Blind  Man's  Wafiiing  in  ihePool 
ofSiloamy  ]oh.  9.  7*  And  of  theLavers  that»S^tei?/7  made 

F  f  to 


434  -^  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right        C  h  a p .  VI. 

to  wafh  in  iheniy  2  Chron  4.  6  Dr.  Gill  turns  ofFthefe 
Inftances  by  faying  only,  ''  they  are  very  impertinent." 
A  fhort  Way  of  anfwering  without  giving  a  Reafon. 
But  by  Dr.  G///'sLeave,  I  think  them  very  appofite.  For 
as  it  cannot  be  argued  from  the  Blind  Man's  Walhing 
in  the  Fool  o{  Siloam^  that  he  immers'd  his  wholeBody  in 
it  ',  but  only  that  he  wafhed  his  Eyer,  by  our  Saviour's 
Diredion,  for  the  Recovery  of  his  Sight  \  nor  from  the 
Laver's  made  to  waflo  in  them^  that  the  Prieiis  plung'd 
their  whole  Bodies  in  them  -,  but  only  that  they  wafhed 
their  Hands  and  their  Feet,  v/ith  the  Water  therein  con- 
tained, let  out  upon  them  as  aforeiaid  :  So  neither  can 
it  be  argued,  from  their  being  baptized  in  theRiver  Jor- 
dan^  that  their  whole  Bodies  were  plunged  under  Water  ; 
but  only  that  the  Water  of  that  River  was  applied  to 
their  Bodies  in  a  Way  proper  for  Wafhing.  And  they 
might  truly  be  faid  to  be  baptized  in  Jordan^  if  but  an 
Handful  of  Water  were  taken  up  from  that  River,  and 
poured  on  their  Faces,  by  the  Adminiilracor,  But  when 
he  aHis,  "  Whoever  wafhes  his  Hands  without  dipping 
''  them  in  the  Water  he  waflies  in  ?"  It  is  furprizing  he 
fhould  be  Ignorant.  AnotherMan  might  aflc,  Whoever 
wafhes  his  Hands,  without  having  Vv'ater  poured  upon 
them  ?  And  there  would  be  equal  Propriety  and  Senfc  in 
each  Queilion.  For  what  End  did  Eliilia  pour  IVater  on 
the  Hands  of  Elijah,  but  that  he  might  wafh  them  ?  2  Kin, 
3.  I  r.  And  his  being  defcribed  as  the  Servant  of  Elijah 
from  this'Charader,—  Elifha  the  Son  ^/"Shaphat,  which 
pcured  JVater  on  the  Rands  c/ Elijah  -,  gives  us  to  under- 
lland,  that  it  v/as  a  common  and  known  Cuftom  forSer- 
vants  to  pour  Water  en  their  M afters  Hands,  when  they 
wafhed  them. 

Dr.  Hammond's  Paraphrafe  on  thefe  Words,  and  our 
Author's  Quofations  from  other  Psedobapt  iff  Writers,  in 
Favour  of  Immerfion,  P.  104,  105.  are  ail  but  an  im- 
pertinent Flouriih.  All  that  can  be  argued  from  them^ 
has  been  granted  already  -,  that  there  have  been  fom.e 
learned /^^^i?/?^////?iwhohave  been  of  theQpinion,as  high- 
ly 


Chap.  VL  cf  Infant-Baptifm,  4?5 

iy  probable,  that  in  the  feveral  PafTages  refer'd  to,  Bap- 
tifm  was  perform'd  by  Immerfion,  according  to  which 
Opinion,  they  fram'd  their  Paraphrafes  and  Expofitions. 
And  this  Probability  is  the  utmoil  that  can  be  gathered 
from  thofe  Texts,  but  no  certain  Proof  ;  but  the  contra- 
ry Opinion  may  be  fairly  maintained  in  Confiflenry  with 
faid  Texts.  The  Mode  of  baptizing  being  Matter  of 
Fad,  can  be  no  otherwife  proved,  than  by  Teftimony  of 
thofe  who  had  the  certain  Knowlege  of  it.  But  the  fa- 
cred  Writers  are  entirely  filent  as  to  the  controverted 
Mode,  whether  by  Immerfion  or  Affufion.  What  they 
declare  of  Perfons  being  baptized  in  Jordan^  or  in  Places 
where  there  is  much  Water,  or  their  going  down  to,  or 
coming  up  out  oi  the  Water,  in  fome  tew  Infbances,  has 
been  accounted  for,without  anyNeceffity  of  fuppofmg  the 
plunging  rheir  wholeBodies.  A  nd  thofePidobaptillWriters 
aforefaid,  were  far  from  (he  rigid  Notion  of  our  Antipae- 
dobaptifts,  that  Immerfion  or  plunging  the  whole  Body, 
is  the  only  valid  Adminillration  of  the  Ordinance,  They 
generally  held  the  Mode,  a  Circumftance  that  was  left 
free  :  And  that  which  Way  foever  it  was  perform'd,the 
Adminiftration  was  valid,  fo  long  as  the  Subftance  of  the 
Ordinance  was  duly  obferv'd.  And  no  more  need  be 
faid  on  this  Argument,  from  human  Authority. 

The  fecond  Text  produc'd  is  no  more  to  the  Purpofe, 
which  is  John  3.  23.  John  was  bapizing  hi  Enon  near  to 
Salim,  becaufe  there  was  much  JVater  there.  Though  our 
Author  fpends  three  or  four  Pages  to  prove  hence,  that 
John  baptiz'd  byDipping,  yet  he  fcarce  makes  out  a  Pro- 
bability of  it.  And  the  fame  Reply  may  ferve  to  all  his 
Arguings  from  this  Text,  as  to  thofe  from  the  former. 
That  the  Words  in  the  Original  fignify  many  Waters^  i.e. 
many  Springs  or  Rivulets,  is  not  denied  ;  whence  it  does 
not  follow  ;  that  the  Place  afforded  a  fufficient  Depth  of 
Water  fur  plunging  Men's  Bodies  :  Though  he  fays, 
*'  They  could  eafily  fill  largePools  fufficient  for  Immei- 
"  fion."  Yet  there  is  nothing  of  this  faid  in  the  facte d 
Hiftory.  Nor  is  it  denied  that  the  Place  might  be  chofe^i 

F  f  2  for 


43^        ^  Befence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  VL 

for  other  Ends,  as  for  the  Supply  of  the  Multitudes  that 
came  to  Jobn^s  Baptifm,  with  Drink  for  themfelves,  and 
their  Horfes,  and  Camels,  as  well  as  for  theConveniency 
of  baptizing  them.  But  letting  afide  thefeConfiderations, 
and  granting  what  cannot  be  prov'd  :  let  the  Words  fig- 
nify  much  Water,  implying  a  large  Quantity,or  deepWa- 
ters,  as  well  as  many  Steams  •,  let  the  Place  be  chofen 
for  Baptifm  only  :  yet  nothing  can  be  concluded  hence, 
but  that  John  baptiz'd  with  Water  •,  which  no  Man  ever 
denied,  not  even  the  Quakers  themfelves.  But  the  Mode 
in  which  he  baptized,  there  is  nothing  faid  to  determine. 
The  Writer  of  the  Dialogue  to  fhew  it  improbable,  that 
John  fnouid  baptize  all  thofe  Multitudes  by  Dipping,  ob- 
ferves,that  had  he  done  fo,  "  he  muft  have  flood  almoft 
"  continually  up  to  his  Waift  in  Water,  and  could  not 
"  have  furviv'd  the  Employment  but  by  Miracle."  Dial, 
P.  ^^.  And  Dr.  Gill  fuppofes,  that  he  had  extraordinary 
divineSupports.  For  fays  he,  P.  103.  "  Admit  the  Work 
"  to  be  hard  &  laborious, yet  as  hisDay  was,  his  Strength 
'^  was,  according  to  the  divinePromife."  But  it  does  not 
feem  likely  that  a  ftandingOrdinance  fhould  be  appointed 
in  the  Church,  that  fhould  at  any  Time  exceed  a  Man's 
ordinary  Strength  to  perform.  However,  to  make  it  look 
credible,  it  might  be  done  without  a  Miracle,  he  tells  us 
a  Story  from  Fox  theMartyrologift, which  he  relates  from 
Fabian^zn  Author  of  no  greatReputation,  "  T\\2XAuftin^ 
"  Archbilhop  o^Canterbujj^hz^pXAx^d  tenThoufand  in  one 
*'  Day,  in  the  River  Swa'le  ;'*  and  adds,  "  Ranulph  the 
"  Monk,  fays  it  was  on  a  Day  in  the  middle  of  Winter." 
Though  this  Story  carries  in  it  much  of  the  Air  of  a  Po- 
pifli  Legend, yet  becaufe  there  is  Dipping  in  the  Cafe,our 
Author  can  fwallow  it  v/ithout  Piefitation,  and  feems 
highly  pleas'd  v/ith  it,  by  his  repeating  it,  Pag. no.  But 
v/hat  great  Service  it  will  do  him  or  his  Caufe,  let  him 
learn  trom  Fuller^  who  gives  this  Account  of  it  from 
Cambden  •,  thac  "  Th^  Archbiihop  commanded  by  the 
''  Voice  of  Cryers,ihat  thePeople  fhould  enter  theRiver 
"  confidently,  two  by  two,  and  in  the  Name  of  the  1  Vi- 

!'  nity 


Chap.  VI.  of  Infant  Baptlfm.  4^7 

*'  nity  baptize  one  another  byTurns.  This  indeed,"  fays 
Fuller^  "  was  the  mod  compendious  Way,otherwire  Jo- 
*'  jhua^s  Day,  wherein  the  Sun  Hood  ilill,  had  been  too 
*'  fhort  for  one  Man's  perfonal  Performance  of  fuch  an 
"  Employment."  And  though  he  does  not  difcredit  the 
whole  Fa6l,  yet  he  queilions  the  Author  of  this  numerous 
Baptizing, &  afcribes  it  rather  mthBede,t:oPaulmuSyArch' 
bilhop  of  Tork,  feveralYears  after.*  And  who,  as  ourAu- 
thor  reports,froni  Bede^  "Did  nothing  elfe  for  fix  &  thirty 
*'  Days  fucce{rively,than  inftrud  the  Peop]e,and  baptize 
"  them  in  the  River  Glen,"  And  this  he  refers  to  as  a 
diftind  Piece  of  Hiftory  from  the  former.  P.  104.  And 
fo,  it  feems,  he  has  made  two  Stories  out  of  one.  What 
Credit  ibever  the  Reader  will  give  to  this  latter  Story,  it 
can  be  but  of  little  Service  to  his  Purpofe. 

The  third  Text  pretended  in  Favour  of  Dipping,  is 
Matth.  3.  16.  Andjefus  when  he  was  baptized ^  went  up 
ftraightway  out  cf  theWater,  All  that  I  Ihall  remark  upon 
his  arguing  from  thefe  Words, is,  that  however  \}^tGreek 
Prepofition  ^^(?,may  fometimes  admit  to  be  render'd  as  it  is 
by  our  Translators  in  this  Text,  out  of^  (tho'  none  of  the 
Texts  he  has  cited  do  necelTarily  infer  this  Senfe,  but  in 
every  one  of  them  the  Particle  may  as  properly  be  ren- 
dered from^  as  out  of)  yet  it  is  undeniable,  that  its  com- 
mon, moft  genuine  and  properSignification  is^from  ;  ac- 
cording to  which  the  EvangeUft  only  declares,  thatjefus 
"when  he  was  baptized,  went  up  from  the  PVater.  And  fo 
it  is  far  from  being  "  a  clearCafe,that  he  v/ent  down  into 
"  it,  in  Order  to  his  being  baptized."  Much  lefs  can  it 
certainly  be  concluded  from  the  Words  (even  as  they 
ftand  in  our  Tranflation)  that  he  was  baptiz'd  in  the  Way 
of  Immerfion.  The  fameObfervation  may  be  made  upon. 

The  fourth  Text,  and  is  that  which  relates  to  Philips 
baptizing  the  Eunuch. y/^7. 8. 3 8,39.  They  went  down  both 
into  the  Water ^  —  and  when  they  were  come  up  out  of  the 
Water ^  &c.  The  Writer  of  the  Dialogue  had  obferv'd  and 
prov'd,  that  the  Prepofition  ^/j,there  rendered  into^  natu- 

F  f  3       ,  "  railjr 

*  fuller'  Churcji-Hift.  of  Britain,  Cent.  7.  §.  19,  2G^ 


43 S         -^  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  VI. 

*•'  rally  fignifies  unto."  And  that  therefore  "  there  can 
^'  be  no  more  proved  from  this  Text  than  that  Philip  and 
*'  and  the  Eunuch  vi^nt  down  to  the  Water  and  came  up 
*'  from  it,"  Dial.  P.  35.  Dr.G///fays,this  is  "  a  very  falie 
Piece  of  Criticifm."  But  how  does  he  make  this  appear  ? 
He  gives  no  other  Reafon,but  what  is  founded  on  a  real 
Miftake  in  Criticifm.  He  fays,  P.  106,  "  TheHiftorian 
**^  relates  in  vsr,  ^6,  that  before  this  they  were  come  to 
a  certain  Water^''  not  "  to  the  Water  Side,"  as  he  by 
IVliftake  interprets  it  ;  but  to  the  Sight  of  Water,  or  to 
a  Place  where  there  was  Water  in  View,  and  at  Hand  : 
for  after  it  is  faid,  they  came  to  a  certain  Water^  and  while 
the  Chariot  was  going  on,  feveral  Queftions  and  Anfwers 
pafs'd  between  Fhilip  and  the  Eunuch,  ver.  36,  o^j.  And 
then  it  follows,  ver.  38.  and  //i?  commanded  the  Chariot  to 
fiand  ftill.  And  they  both  lighted  from  it,  and  went  down 
unto  the  Water  :  Whence  it  appears,he  had  noReafon  to 
tax  the  Criticifm  in  the  Dialogue  with  Falihood,  from  any 
Inconfiftency  with  the  Context,with  which  it  bears  a  per- 
fed  Harmony.  And  his  Arguing  is  very  precarious,  that 
becaufe  the  Prepofition  fometimes  fignifies  /«/d?,therefore 
^^  it  muft  have  this  Significati^j^  here."  For  he  gives  no 
Reafon  for  it,  but  what  is  built  on  the  foremention'd  Mif- 
take. And  as  he  cannot  deny  that  the  other  Prepofition 
fignifies  as  properly /r<?»/,  as  out  of  So  here  is  noEvidence 
at  all  that  the  Eunuch  was  bapti^'d  by  Dipping,nor  that 
he  did  fo  piuch  as  flep  into  the  Water.  Thilif  might  bap- 
tise him,  by  taking  up  Water  in  the  hollow  of  hisHand, 
and  pouring  it  on  his  Face.  There  is  nothing  in  facred 
Writ  to  contradid  this.  However  it  is  a  niceCriticifm, 
and  I  think  it  not  worthwhile  to  contend  about  it  •,  there 
is  nothing  gain'd  or  loft  on  either  Side,  if  it  be  read,  as 
in  our  Tranfiation,  they  both  went  into  the  IVater^  and 
went  up  out  of  it.  But  it  no  more  follows  hence,that  the 
Eunuch  was  baptiz'dbyDipping,than  that  PM^  him felf 
was  baptiz'd  \  for  the  fame  Thing  is  faid  of  both,  they 
hlh  went  down  into  theJVatcr ;  and  there  is  no  more  Evi- 
dence 


Chap.  VL  ^/ Infant-Baptlfm.  4j^ 

dence  that  the  Eunuch  was  dipp'd,  than  there  is,  that  he 
went  further  into  the  Water  than  Philip. 

Calvin  is  here  again,  quoted  tor  his  Opinion  of  the 
Antients,their  Baptizing  by  Plunging.  P.  107.  Andfince 
our  Author  fcems  to  pay  a  Regard  to  Calvin's  Authority 
(and  why  fliould  he  not  do  it  in  one  Thing  as  well  as 
another,)  He  would  do  well  to  confider  the  Words  of 
Calvin  that  follow  next  to  thofe  he  has  quoted  ;  which 
he  has  wifely  omitted,becaufe  they  (hew  too  plainly  to  be 
of  any  Service  to  his  Caufe,  what  the  Sentiments  of  thofe 
Pasdobaptifts  were  v/ho  fuppos'd  the  Antients.  to  make 
ufe  of  Immerfion  in  Baptizing.  His  Words  are,  (after 
having  obferv'd  that  the  common  Cuilom  is  now  for  the 
Minifter  to  ufe  Afperfion)  *  Caterum^  non  tarti  ejfe  novis 
debet^  &c,  "  Neverthelefs,  fo  fmall  a  Difference  of  Cere- 
"  mony  ought  not  to  be  of  fo  great  Account  with  us, 
"  that  we  (hould  for  that  Gaufe  rend  the  Church,  or  dif- 
"  turb  it  withourContentionsorControverfies."  And  fur- 
ther he  declares,  "  that4W^thing  of  theSubilance  cfBaptifm 
is  wanting,  while  the  Symbol  of  Water  is  made  ufe  of, 
for  the  Ends  which  Chrift  has  appointed  ;  and  the  Sub- 
fiance  being  retain'd,  theChurch  from  the  Beginning  en- 
joy'd  aLiberty  of  making  ufe  of  fomewhat  difFerentRiteSo 
And  therefore  we  ought  not  to  be  unreafonably  ftifFin 
Things  unnecelTary  or  uncommanded,"  of  which  Nature 
it  is  plain  he  fuppofes  the  Mode  of  Baptizing.  Now  let 
our  Adverfaries  agree  to  this,and  theControverfy  is  at  an 
End. 

The  laftText  produced  and  pleaded  in  Favour  of  Dip- 
ping, is  Rom.  6.  4.  fVe  are  buried  with  him  byBaptifm  into 
Death.  Whence  Dr.  Gi// thus  argues,  P.  107.  "Bap- 
'*  tifm  is  called  a  Burial  ;  a  Burial  with  Chrift,  a  Repre- 
"  fentation  or  Refemblance  of  his,  which  it  cannot  be, 
"  unlefs,  it  be  adminifl -ed  by  Dipping."  In  Reply 
whereto,  after  all  that  has  been  faid,  and  piTticularly  in 
Reference  to  the  Sufferings  and  Death  of  Chrift  figura- 
tively expreffed  by  Baptifm,  it  flic^li  fufRce  to  oblerve 
thefe  few  Things.  Firjl 

*  C&hin  in  A^,  8.  ^?. 


440        ^  Defence  of  the  Divine  Rlghi        Chap.  YI. 

Firft.  Tho'  Baptifm  hath  Reference  to  the  Death  of 
Chrill,  in  which  the  New-Covenant  is  founded  ;  and  tho' 
it  derives  all  its  Virtue  from  his  Death,  yet  it  is  a  great 
Miftake  to  fay,  that  Baptifm  was  inftituted  to  be  a  Re- 
femblance,  either  of  his  Death  or  Burial.  Baptifm  was 
defign'd  for  an  higher  End,  as  a  Sacrament  ot  the  New- 
Tellament,  namely,  to  reprefent  and  fignify  theApplica- 
tion  of  the  Benefits  of  his  Death,  for  Rcmillion  ot  Sins, 
and  San61:ification  &  Cieanfing  by  his  Blood  and  Spirit,to 
the  Perfon  baptized  -,  and  alfo  to  reprefent  and  confirm 
his  Obligation  to  a  fpiritual  Conformity  to  the  Death  and 
RefurreSion  of  Chrift  in  the  Mortification  of  Sin,  and 
."Walking  in  Newnefs  of  Life.  And  that  this,and  nothing 
elfe  can  be  the  Meaning  of  the  Apoftle,  is  evident  from 
theContext,  when,  our  being  buried  withChrift  into  Beatb^ 
and  being  planted  together  in  theLikenefs  of  hii Deaths  f'S* 
and  being  crucified  withhim^  f.  6.  arePhrafes  of  the  fame 
Signihcancy.  Therefore  it  can  be  no  moregather'd  hence, 
that  Baptifm  was  defign'd  to  be  a  Reprefentation  or  Re- 
femblance  of  his  Burial,  than  of  his  Crucifixion.  The 
fame  Thing,  viz.  a  Conformity  to  the  fpiritual  Virtue  of 
his  Death,  being  intended  by  our  being  buried  with  him 
Jnto  Death,  and  being  crucified  with  hirn.  But  if  Baptifm 
were  a  miCer  fymbolical  Reprefentation  of  the  Fad  of 
Chrift's  Death  and  Burial,  it  mufl  be  fo  to  all  that  attend 
the  Adminiftration  of  it,  who  are  all  equally  &  indiffer- 
ently capable  of  having  it  reprefented  to  them.  And  fo 
Baptifm  would  fignify  no  more  Communion  in  the  Bene- 
fits of  Chrift's  Death  to  the  Party  baptiz'd,  than  to  many 
others  who  have  no  real,  or  vilibleTitle  to  them  •,  and  no 
more  Obligation  to  a  Conformity  to  the  Defign  of  it. 
Again,  if  Baptiiin  were  defign'd  to  reprefent  the  Death 
and  Burial  of  our  Lord,  what  NecefTity  is  there  that  it 
fhould  be  a  Refemblance  of  it  ?  The  Lord's-Supper  was 
more  plainly  appointed  to  reprefent  the  Death  of  Chrill, 
than  Baptifm.  i  Cor.  ii.  26.  As  often  as  ye  eat  of  this 
Bread^hc.  ye  do  floew  forth  the  hordes  Death.  But  whac 
iiefemblance  is  there  of  the  Death  qf  Chrift  in  Eating  aiicjl 

Drinking? 


Chap.  VI.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  441 

Drinking  ?  'Tis  an  inftituted  Reprefentation  that  is  in- 
tended, and  not  a  natural  Relemblance.     Bur, 

Secondly^  There  is  no  more  aRefemblance  of  the  Burial 
of  Chriil  in  the  Mode  ot  Iminerfion  in  Baptifm,  than  in 
that  of  Sprinkhng  or  Affufion.  No  more  Refemblance  of 
the  Burial  proper  to  Chrift's  Perfon,  or  of  common  Bu- 
rials, (i.)  There  is  no  Refemblance  of  the  Burial  proper 
to  Chrift's  Perfon  in  the  Mode  of  Immerfion.  His  dead 
Body  was  intomb'd  in  a  Sepulchral-Monument,  after  the 
Manner  of  rich  and  honourable  Perlbns,  as  diftinguifh'd 
from  theGraves  of  the  common  People,  which  were  made 
in  theEarth  ;  fuch  as  are  difcrib'd  by  our  Saviour,  Luk. 
1 1 .  44.  Graves  which  appear  not^  and  the  Men  that  walk 
over  them  are  not  aware  of  them.  For  Jofeph  a  rich  Man 
laid  the  Body  /;;  his  own  new  'Tomb  which  he  had  hewn  out 
in  the  Rock^  Mar.  27.  60.  For  it  feems  the  Rich  and 
Great  afteded  to  be  diftinguifhed  from  the  Vulgar  in  the 
Manner  of  their  Burial,  having  Caves  hev/ed  out  ot  a 
Rock,  or  Sepulchres  hewed  out  on  high :  Such  a  Sepulchre 
had  Shebna  prepared,  who  being  but  an  ill  Man, the  Pro- 
phet is  fent  to  rebuke  him  for  his  Pride  and  Vanity,  and 
Security,  in  thefeWords,  Ifai.22.16.  J^Vhat  haft  thou  here  ? 
Or  whom  haft  thou  here^  that  thou  haft  hewed  thee  out  a  Se- 
pulchre here^as  he  that  heweih  him  out  aSepulchre  on  high  ? 
The  common  People  were  but  laid  in  the  Ground  with- 
out any  Tomb  ^  but  the  richer  and  nobler  Sort  eredled  to 
themfelves  Sepulchres  on  high  :  and  in  fuch  a  Sepulchre 
was  the  facred  Body  of  Chrift  depofited.  And  thus  di- 
vers learned  Criticks  think  the  Words  of  the  Prophet 
iliould  been  rendred,  Ifai.  53.  9.  He  made  his  Grave 
with  the  Wicked^  and  with  the  Rich  his  high  F laces.  Now 
what  Refemblance  does  the  plynging  Men  under  Water 
bare  to  our  Saviour's  Burial,  whofeBody  was  not  put  un- 
der Ground,  nor  cover'd  with  Earth  ?  but  was  laid  in  a 
Sepulchre  hewn  out  of  aRock  on  high.  Nor  (2.)  is  there 
any  more  Refemblance  of  a  commonBurial  inBaptifm  by 
lmmerfion,than  by  fprinkling  or  pouring  on  Water.  For 
a  dead  Body  is  not  buried  meerly  by  being   put   into  a 

Pic 


44-2  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  VI. 

Pit  made  in  the  Ground,but  by  caftingEarth  upon  it,  to 
cover it,which  is  as  fitly  lignified  bySpnnklingorpouring 
Water  on  the  baptized,as  by  dipping  the  wholeBody  un- 
der Water.  And  a  Corpfe  even  aboveGround,may  be  pro- 
perly faid  to  be  buried,  by  having  a  fufficient  Quantity 
of  Earth  call  upon  it.  And  therefore  the  pouring  on  Wa- 
ter anfwers,  in  Point  of  Significancy,  the  chief  Intent  of 
burying.  Nor  is  the  Quantity  of  Water  prefcribed  in  the 
Inftitution,  nor  any  where  determin'd,  but  fo  much  as 
may  ferve  for  an  outward  Sign  of  the  fpiritual  Benefits 
confer'd  ;  and  the  fmalleft  as  well  as  largeftQuantity  may 
fuffice  for  thatPurpofe^as  in  the  Lord's-Supper,the  eating 
and  drinking  a  fmall  Portion  of  Bread  &Wine,  fitly  figni- 
fies  the  fpiritual  Feaft  on  the  Sacrifice  of  Chrift's  Death. 
And  fo  we  fee  what  our  Author  fo  roundly  affirms,  P.  io8. 
"  There  is  no  otherMode  of  adminiftring  theOrdinance, 
*'  that  can  reprefent  a  Burial,  but  Immerfion,"  is  quite 
Groundlefs,and  to  be  imputed  to  the  overflow  ofhisZeal 
for  Dipping  -,  and  deferves  no  furtherReply.  And  hence 
I  think  it  evident,  that  all  the  Texts  here  cited  from 
the  New-Teftament  fail  of  certain  Proof,  that  Dipping 
was  the  conilant  Mode  of  Baptizing.  Nor  is  there  one 
fingle  Inftance  that  he  is  able  to  produce,  whence  it  may 
certainly  be  infer'd  that  theOrdinance  was  adminiftred  by 
Im.merfion.  All  that  can  be  concluded  from  the  above 
PaflageSjWith  any  Appearance  ot  Reafon,  is  a  bareProba- 
bility  ;  and  this  I  am  willing  to  grant,and  am  inclinable 
to  the  Opinion  ot  thofe  who  think  it  probable,  that  both 
Modes  were  ufed  in  Scripture  Times.  All  that  1  contend 
for,  is,  that  both  Modes  of  Affufion  and  Immerfion  are 
equally  lawful  and  valid ;  againft  the  unreafonable  Pre- 
tenfions  of  our  Adverfaries,who  limit  the  Validity  of  the 
Ordinance  toDipping  :  Who  yet  can  produce  no  exprefs 
New-Teftament  Proof  of  it ;  which  they  demand  in  the 
Cafe  of  Infanrs-Baptifm.  AUtheProof  they  pretend,!  have 
fhewed,  to  be  built  upon  a  precarious  Bottom.  And  as 
^  it  can  never  be  demonftrated  from  the  Scripture- i^ccount 
of  this  Mattel-,  ^Y!iether  the  Ordinance  of  Baptifm  was 

certainly 


Chap.  VI.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  44^ 

certainly  performed  only  byDippingjOrbyfprinkling'with 
Water  •,  lo  theProbability  hence,is  at  leail  equal  on  both 
Sides :  And  as  I  have  allow'd  it  on  one  Side  iorDipping, 
fo  I  affirm  on  the  otherHand,thcre  are  many  Inftances  of 
Baptifms  recorded  in  the  New-Teftament,  in  which  it  is 
neither  probable,  nor  fcarce  poflible,  that  the  Mode  of 
Dipping  was  ufed.  All  the  Inftances,  except  thofe  bap- . 
tized  by  John^  and  the  Eunuch^  were  of  Perlbns  baptize^ 
in  Ci  Jes,  or  private  Houfes,  or  Synagogues,  where,  as 
foon  as  any  were  converted  to  the  Chriflian  Faith,  the 
facred  Story  tells  us,  they  were  immediately  thereupon 
baptized  j  without  the  leaft  Hint  of  their  Removal  from 
the  Spot,  or  going  to  any  River,  Pool,  or  Bath,  for  the 
Sake  of  being  dipp'd.  This  is  the  next  Thing  contefted 
by  our  Author. 

Fourthly^  T  he  Inftances  in  Scripture,  that  Hiow  it  im- 
probable that  this  Ordinance  was  perform'd  by  Dipping. 
Thofe  mentioned  in  thtDialogue,  are  theThreeThoufand 
baptized  at  Pentecoft  -,  the  Baptifm  o^  Paul,  of  Cornelius 
and  hisCompany,  of  the  Jailor  and  his  Houfnold.  Now 
whatever  may  be  argued  for  the  Probability  of  Dipping, 
in  the  Cafe  of  thofe  who  came  to  John\  Baptifm  ;  yet  1 
think,  no  Man  without  the  moft  flagrant  Partiality  can 
deny  the  equal  Probability  of  Affufion  or  Sprinkling  in 
the  Inftances  refer'd  to.    To  touch  briefly  on  Particulars, 

Firft^  As  to  thofe  Three  Thoufand  that  were  con- 
verted on  the  Day  of  Pentecoft,  by  the  Apoftle  Peter\ 
Sermon  ;  and  were  baptized  the  fame  Day,  probably  to- 
wards the  Clofe  of  it  :  The  Improbability  of  their  being 
dipt,arifes  chiefly  from  twoConfiderations  :  TheShortnefs 
of  the  Time,  and  the  Want  of  Convenience,  on  a  \\}^dit\\^ 
for  baptizing  fuch  aMultitude  of  People.  Dr.GV// allows, 
they  were  baptized  the  fameDay  ;  which  I  think  is  clear 
from  the  Context.  But  I  perceive  he  is  for  fhortning 
the  Apoftle's  Sermon,  that  he  might  have  a  longerSpace 
for  performing  the  Ceremony  of  Dipping.  He  tells  us, 
P.  1 10.  that  "  it  was  but  the  thirdHour,or  nine  o'Clock 
*^  in  the  Morning^when  Putr  began  his  Sermon  \  wliich 

*'  dees 


444         ^  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap. VI. 

*'  does  not  feem  to  be  a  long  One,  &c."  But  his  fixing 
the  Beginning  of  the  Apoftle's  Sermon  at  the  thirdHour, 
or  nine  o'Clock,  proceeds,  I  apprehend,  from  a  Miflake. 
The  Apoftle  does  indeed  fay,  A61.  2.  15  nefe  are 
not  drunken  as  ye  fuppofe^  fe^if^g  i^  is  hut  the  third  Hour 
of  the  Day.  But  the  third  Hour,  in  the  Account 
of  the  Jews,  comprehended  the  whole  Space  of  Time, 
which  run  out  from  the  third  to  the  fixth  Hour  5  or  as 
we  fpeak,  from  nine  o'Clock,  till  Noon :  For  as  they 
divided  theirDay  into  Twelve  Hours,y^^.i  1.9.  So  again 
they  divided  it  into  four  Quarters,  (as  their  Nights  were 
divided  into  four  Watches)  afligning  threeHours  to  each 
Quarter,  which  Quarter  was  denominated  from  theHour 
whence  it  began.  And  fo  the  fecond  Quarter  was  de- 
nominated from  the  third  Hour.  This  was  efpecially 
obferv'd  on  their  folemn  Feflivals,  when  the  third,  fixth, 
and  ninth  Hour,  was  notified  by  theSound  of  aTVumpet: 
And  this  Account  of  the  Divifion  of  their  Day,offers  the 
fairefl  Method  I  have  met  with,  of  reconciHng  the  two 
EvangeUIts,  concerning  the  Time  of  Chrifl'sCrucifixion  : 
Which  is  follow'd  h^Calvinfirotius^Aretius^  and  others.-f 
Mark  faith,  Cha-p,  15-25.  And  it  was  the  third  Hour ^  and 
they  crucified  him,  John  faith  it  was  ahout  the  fixth  Hour  ^ 
when  P/7^/^  delivered  him  to  be  crucified,  J^^.  19.  14. 
that  is,  that  Quarter  of  the  Day  which  was  denominated 
from  the  third  Hour,was  not  compleated  when  they  cru- 
cified him,  though  it  might  be  near  Noon,  or  the  fixth 
Hour.  And  fo  Peter  faying,  //  is  hut  the  third  Hour  of 
the  Day^  does  not  determine  the  Time  of  the  Beginning 
of  his  Sermon,  precifely  to  nine  o'Clock  :  It  might  be  an 
Hour  or  two,  or  longer  after  that  Time,  even  'till  the 
fixth  Hour.  It  is  probable,  that  the  Difciples  came  to- 
gether in  one  Place,  at  the  Beginning  of  the  thii*dHour; 
which  was  the  Time  of  Morning  Prayer  with  the  Jews^^ 
and  when  the  Morning  Sacrifice  was  offered.  And  fup- 
pofing  the  HolyGhoil  to  have  defcended  upon  them  pre- 
cifely 

t  Vid.'Pol.  Synop.  Crit.  in  Matt.  27.  45.  C^/a'.Harm.  Evang.  inMar. 
15.25.  Aret.  iiijoh.  19.  14.  *  Vid  Pol.  Synop.  Crit.  in  Aft.2.25, 


Chap.  VI.  ef  Infant-Baptlfnl.  445 

cifely  at  nine  o'Clock,  the  feveral  Events  that  followed 
before  Peter  began  his  Sermon,  muft  take  up  a  confide- 
rable  Space  of  Time,  as,  the  Apofties  fpeaking  with 
Tongues  to  the  Company  then  prcfent,  f,  4.  And 
after  that,  this  was  noifed  Abroad,  as  a  ftrange  and  an  a- 
mazing  Event,  j^.5.  Which  occafion'd  the  Multitudes  of 
the  feveral  Nations  mentioned  in  the  following  Verfes,  to 
gather  together  to  the  Apofties,  whom  they  heard  for 
fome  Time  fpeaking  to  them,  in  their  own  Tongue,  the 
wonderful  Works  of  God,  v.  11.  At  which  they  expref- 
fed  their  Surprize  and  Aftonifhment.  So  that  one  or 
two  Sermons  had  been  preach'd  fince  the  Defcent  of  the 
Holy  Ghoft, before  Peter  ftood  up  and  delivered  thatDif- 
courfe,theSubftance  of  which  is  recorded  from,  f,  14.  to 
f.^6.  inclufively.  And  though  this  Sermon,  as  here  re- 
corded, be  of  no  great  Length,  yet  we  muft  Note^  that 
the  facred  Hiftorian  pretends  not  to  give  us  his  whole 
Difcourfe,but  exprefly  tells  us,that  with  many  otherWords 
he  did  teftify  and  exhort  them^^c.  /.40.  Ail  whichThings 
confidered,  the  Day  muft  be  far  fpent,before  the  Apofties 
could  proceed  to  their  Baptifm.  And  then  let  our  Au- 
thor fuppofe,  as  many  as  were  qualified,  to  be  Admini- 
ftrators  of  theOrdinance  ;  it  is  hardly  poffible  fuch  a  vaft 
Multitude  could  be  plunged  in  fo  fhort.  a  Space,  as  the 
Remainder  of  the  Day  muft  be  fuppofed  to  be.  He  tells 
us,  that  "  a  Perfon  being  ready, is  very  near  as  foon  dip- 
"  ped  into  Water,  as  Water  can  be  taken  and  fprinkled 
*'  or  poured  on  hisFace."  Thatis,aMan  may  very  nearjas 
foon  ftrip  himfeif  naked,  and  go  down  into  a  Pool,  or 
Bath,  and  be  plung'd  underWater,  as  have  Water  fprink- 
led on  his  Face.  He  muft  have  a  very  mean  Opinion 
of  the  Senfe  of  Mankind,  to  hope  to  be  believed  in  this. 
Or  if  he  means  by  their  being  ready^  their  ftanding  ftark 
naked,  (as  the  ancient  Cuftom  was,  we  are  told,  when 
Dipping  was  ufed,)  before  fuch  a  promifcuous  Multitude 
ot  Spedators,  how  can  it  be  reconcil'd  to  Decency  and 
Modefty  ?  So  that  the  Shortnefs  of  the  Time  for  bap- 
tizing fo  many  Thoafands,  makes  out  an  Argument  of 

far 


44^         A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  VI. 

far  greater  Probability  of  their  being  baptized  by  Perfu- 
fion,than  by  fo  tedious  aCeremony,as  that  oflmmerfion. 
Efpecially,  if  we  add  hereto,  the  Want  of  Convenience 
for  dipping  fo  vail  a  Number  of  People.  That  there 
were  in  Jerufalem  many  Baths,  or  Conveniencies  for  Im- 
merfion,  I  make  no  Doubt  ;  but  the  Queflion  is,  How 
was  it  poffible,  the  Apoftles  could  find  fuddenly, 
proper  Conveniencies  fufficienc  for  Plunging  fo  great  a 
Multitude,fo  as  to  employ  all  Hands,  that  may  be  tho't 
qualified  to  adminifter  the  Ordinance  ?  Which  had  been 
few  enough  for  fuch  an  Employment,  had  Sprinkling 
only  been  ufed.  Oi^r  Author  pretends  to  find  out  Con- 
veniencies enough  for  that  Purpofe  •,  the  chief  he  menti- 
ons 2iVt^The  Dipping- Room  in  the^emple^  The  ten  Lavers  of 
Brafs^  and  the  Molten  Sea,  He  is  fo  weak, as  to  fuppofe, 
that  the  Jewifli  Priefts,who  had  thcCuftody  of  the  Baths 
in  the  Temple,  and  who  had  been  the  mortalEnemies  of 
Jefus  Chrilt,  and  his  Followers  ♦,  were  become  all  on  a 
fudden,  fo  friendly  and  good  natur'd  to  the  Difciples,  as 
to  permit  them  the  Ufe  of  thole  Baths,  for  the  baptizing 
Frofelytes  from  Judaifm  to  Chriftianity.  But  whatever 
a  warm  Imagination  may  fugged,  1  believe  moft  Men 
of  a  cool  and  unbiafs'd  Thought,  upon  confidering  the 
Fad,  in  all  its  Circuraflances,  will  be  apt  to  conclude  it 
utterly  unlikely,  that  Three  Thou-fand  People,  and  per- 
haps agreaterNumber,Cas  I  have  Ihewed  probable, Jfhould 
be  baptized  otherwife,  than  by  Sprinkling  or  Affufion. 
And  then, 
Secondly.  As  to  PauPs  Baptifm  ;  to  (hew  the  Improba- 
bility of  his  being  dip'd  or  plung'd,  nothing  needs  to  be 
added  to  the  plain  hiftorical  Narrative,  given  us  by  the 
facred  Penman  ;  which  reprcfents  his  Baptifm  to  be  ad- 
miniftred  in  the  Houfe  of  Judas,  where  he  lay  threeDays 
blind,  without  eating  or  drinking.  And  when  Ananias 
had  fpoken  to  him,it  is  faid,  He  received  Sight  forthwith^ 
and  arofe,  and  was  baptized,  A61.  9.  18.  Dv.Gill  would 
make  out  an  Argument  for  hisMode,from  Paul's  ariftng 
to  be  baptized  j  and  fays,  P,H2.  **  Had  the  Ordinance 

*'  been 


Chap.  VI.  of  lafant-Baptifm.  447 

"  been  to  have  been  admir.iftred  by  Sprinkling,  or  pour- 
"  ing  a  little  Water  upon  him,  he  need  not  have  rofc 
"  up  from  either  his  Bed,  or  his  Chair."  But  if  he  was 
able  to  arife,  he  ought  to  have  done  it,in  Reverence  to  the 
Ordinance.  And  the  Text  faith.  He  arofe"  and  was  bap^ 
tized'y  but  that  there  was  "a  Bath  in  7«^jj'sHoufe,''  or 
that  he  went  to  any  "Place  without  Doors,  convenient  '* 
for  Dipping,  there  is  not  the  ieaft  Hint ;  but  is  the  meer 
Imagination  and  Surmife  of  ourAuthor,without  anyRea- 
fon  at  all  ;  but  only  i:  feems  to  run  in  his  Head,  thac 
where-ever  he  meets  with  the  Word  Baptife^  or  an  In- 
ftance  of  Baptifm,  there  mud  be  Plunging  in  the  Cafe. 

thirdly.  As  to  the  Baptifm  of  Cornelius  and  his  Hou- 
fhold  ;  The  Words  of  the  Apoftle  Peter^  Ad.  10.  47. 
Can  anyMan  forhidWaterythat  thefe  foould  not  he  baptized ; 
in  their  proper  Senfe  &  Conftrudioo,  plainly  fuppofe  the 
bringing  and  pouring  of  Water  in  theirBaptifm  ;  and  not 
their  repairing  to  any  Pool  or  River  for  that  End.  Dr. 
Gill  fays,  "  I'he  Senfe  is,  Can  any  Man  forbid  the  Ufe  of 
*'  his  River, or  Bath,or  whatConveniency  he  might  have, 
*'  for  the  Baptizing  (i.  e.  Dipping^  of  Perfons."  But 
thefe  are  not  the  Apoflle's  Words,  but  a  flrained  Senfe 
put  upon  them  :  Had  he  faid.  Can  any  Man  forbid  theUfe 
of  his  River  or  Bath  j  we  had  heard  of  it  often  enough  : 
'Tis  the  very  Point  in  Controvcrfy.  But  hisWords  are. 
Can  any  Man  forbid  Water  ?  Which  implies,  (i)  That  if 
they  had  butWater,they  might  be  baptized,without  fup- 
pofing  the  Neceffity  of  any  large  Quantity,  or  Depth  of 
Water  for  that  Purpofe  :  otherwife,  tho'Water  were  not 
forbidden,  yet  they  might  not  be  baptized.  (2  J  The 
Phrafe  oi  forbidding  IVater^  in  order  to  Baptifm,  in  ftricl 
Senfe  and  Propriety  of  Speech,  imports,  the  forbidding 
Water  being  brought  ;  otherwife,  if  thisMeaning  be  put 
on  the  Apoltle's Words,  Who  can  forbid  their  going  to  any 
River  or  Bath  ;  it  is  very  harfh  and  unnatural.  He  fays 
further,  P.i  13.  if  the  Senfe  were  not  as  he  gives  it,  "  it 
"  would  not  have  been  in  thePower  of  any  Man  to  hin- 
"  dcr  their  having  a  littk Water  to  be  fprinkled  or  pour- 

"  ed 


448  A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right  Chap.  VL 

"  ed  on  the  Face.''  Jnfwer^  Cornelius^  or  any  one  of 
theCircumcifjon  prefent  with  Peter^xm^t  have  forbidden 
them  Water  for  the  End  ot  Baptifnijif  they  had  not  evi- 
dently a  divine  Right  to  that  Ordinance  ,  concerning 
which,  being 'fo  plainly  fignified  by  the  Defcent  of  the 
Holy  Ghoft  upon  them,  he  appeals  to  all  prefent,and  re- 
fers it  to  theirjudgmentjwhether  any  of  them  could  with 
Reafon  forbid  Water  to  be  brought,  and  applied  to  them 
in  theOrdinance  of  Baptifm  •,  who  had  received  theHoly 
Ghoft:  And  this  Senfe  is  proper  and  intelligible.  What 
the  Writer  of  the  Dialogue  had  faid  to  expofe  theAbfur- 
dity  of  the  contrary  Senfe,  that  "  certainly  the  Apoftle 
"  did  not  fpeak  of  forbidding  the  Water  to  run  in  the 
"  River  &c."  Dr.  Gill  fays,  "  is  very  impertinent  and 
ridiculous."  That  is  to  fay,  the  Exceptions  and  Cavils 
of  the  Antipsdobaptifts  againfl  thisText,and  their  Ways 
of  explaining  it,  to  fuit  their  Hypothefis  (which  have  no 
better  Senfe)  are  very  impertinent  and  ridiculous.  And 
herein  I  fully  agree  with  him. 

The  Baptifm  of  the  Jailor  and  his  Houfhold,    is  the 
fourth  and  laft  Inftance,  which  the  Relation  given  by  the 
facred  Hiftorian  renders  exceeding  probable,  if  not  cer- 
tain, was  performedonly  by  Sprinkling,or  pouringWater 
upon  them.     HisWords  are.  Ad.  1 6.3 3,  And  be  took  them 
the  fame  Hour  of  the  Night  {viz.'m  which  he  was  convert- 
ed to  the  Faith  of  JefusChrifl:,   which  was  about  Mid- 
night, ver.  25,26.)  and  wafijed  their  Stripes ^and  was  bap- 
tized^ he  and  all  his  firaightway.     Our  Author  has   no- 
thing to  objed  to  this,  j^but  mod  extravagant  Suppoliti- 
ons  imaginable  ;  either,  that  "  there  was  a  Pool  in  the 
"  Prifon  j"  or  "that  they  went  out  of  the  Prifon  to  the 
*'  River  near  the  City."     One  may  fee  here,  an  Inftance 
of  the  pitiful  Shifts,  a  defperate  Caufe  is  forc'd  to  fly  to, 
when  Men  are  rcfolved  to  (land  it  out  againft  all  rational 
Probability.     'Tis  quite  unreafdnable  and  incredible,thac 
the  Jailor,  with  his  whole  Family,  fhould  leave  the  Pri- 
fon,and  the  Prifoners,  of  whom  he  had  fo  ftri6t  aCharge, 
(concerning  whom  he  had  but  a  few  Minutes  before  been 

thrown 


Chap.  VI.  ,     of  Infant- Baptifm.  449 

thrown  into  an  Agony  of  Fear,  lefl  any  of  them  had 
made  their  Efcape)  and  go  forth  out  of  the  City  to  the 
River-fide  in  the  dead  of  the  Night,  "and  return  unob- 
fervedby  any  before  Morning-,"  when  many  of  the  Inha- 
bitants, were,  doubtlcfs,  rous'd  by  the  Earthquake  that 
happened.  But  fuchSuppofitions  are  found  neceffary,  to 
the  Defence  of  the  Caufe  our  Author  has  undertaken. 
We  have  no  Reafon  to  fuppofe  any  greater  Quantity  of 
Water  made  Ufe  of  for  their  Baptifm,  than  what  might 
be  in  a  Veflel  at  Hand,out  of  which  thejailor  had  wafhed 
their  Stripes  (^  and  no  Man  furely  will  think  it  necefTary 
that  they  fhould  be  plung'd  for  that  Purpofe)  for  the  fa- 
cred  Penman  tells  us  in  the  fame  Breath,  He  wajhed  their 
Stripes^  and  was  baptized^  he  and  all  his  Jtraightway 

AH  that  remains,  is  to  take  Notice,  in  a  few  Words,  of 
his  Exceptions  to  that  PafTage  in  the  Dialogue,  '^  Since 
"  Sprinkling  was  the  greatell  Purification  among  the 
"  Jews,  and  our  Cleanfing  by  the  Blood  of  Chrifl,  and 
*'  by  the  Influences  of  the  blefTed  Spirit,  are  frequently 
"  reprefented  by  Sprinkling,  and  by  Affufion,  but  never 
*'  by  Dipping  ;  it  is  a  natural  and  jufh  Conclufion,  that 
*'  our  Mode  of  adminiftring  the  Ordinance  of  Bapiifm 
"  is  the  mofl  proper."  Dial.  P. 39.  Here,  Dr.  G/7/ denies 
that  Sprinkling  was  the  greateft  Purification  among  the 
Jews.  But  his  Miltakes  in  this  Matter  have  been  fuf- 
ficiently  detedled,  and  confuted  above.  But  he  adds,  P. 
114.  "  It  is  not  Fa6l  that  the  Blood  of  Chrift,  and  the 
*'  Influences  of  the  Spirit  are  never  reprefented  by  Dip- 
j*'  ping."  His  reader  muft  pity  him  that  he  is  fo  lame  in 
tiis  Proofs.  "The  Bloody  Sufferings  of  Chrifl-,"  he  fays, 
!•'  are  called  a  Baptifm."  But  what  is  this  to  the  Pur- 
Ipofe  ?  That  metaphorical  Term  is  intended  to  exprcfs 
)niy  the  perfonal  Sufferings  of  Chrift,but  noApplication 
)f  them,  much  lefs  any  Mode  of  Application.  Another 
Thing  he  pretends  is,  "  The  Blood  of  Chrifl  is  rapre- 
fented  as  a  Fountain  opened  to  wafli  in  for  Sin  and  for 
Uncleannefs.  Zech,  13.  i."  But  there  is  nothing  men- 
G  g  tion'd 


4^         A  Defence  of  the  Divine  Right         Chap.  VL 

tion'd  in  that  I'ext,  either  of  the  Blood  of  Chrifl^  or  of 
waping  in  it.     The  Words  are,  In  that  Day  there fhall  be 
a  Fountain  opened— for  Sin  and  forUndeannefs,  Which  in- 
tends nothing  more  than,  the  Gofpel-Dodrine  of  God's, 
free  Grace  and  Mercy  Ihall  be  open'd  to  Sinners,for  par- 
doning and  cleanfing  them  from  their  Sins  through  the 
Blood  of  Chrift.     However  thofe  figurative  ExprefTions 
import  a  Cleanfing,  yet  there  is  not  the  leaft  Intimation 
of  the  Manner  of  Cleanfing,  m.uch  lefs  of  Dipping,rather 
than  of  Sprinkling.  Vv^e  find  in  theLaw,  runningWater, 
fuch  as  illues  from  a  Fountain,  was  to  be  m.ade  ufe  of  in 
Sprinkling  the  Unclean.   And  as  for  the  Influences  of  the 
Spirit,  he  fays,  P.  115.  "  The  Donation  of  the  Spirit  on 
*'  the  Day  ot  Pentecoft,  is  called  a  Baptifm,"  or  (as  he 
would  have  it  exprefs'd)  "  a  Dipping."  But  this  is  the 
very  Argument  that  has  been  improved  for  his  Confuta- 
tion :  And  one  would  think,  if  any  Thing  plainly  ex- 
prefs'd in  Scripture  were  fufficient  to  convince  &  filence 
a  Wrangler,  this  might  do  it.    The  Meaning  of  our  Sa- 
viour's Words,  2 1  fhall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghofi^ 
is  not,  ye  Ihall  be  dipp'^d  into  the  PolyGhoft  ;  but  ye 
fliall  have   the  Holy  Ghoft  poured  out  upon  you.     The 
Apoftle  Feter^  after  he  had  receiv'd  this  Baptifm  of  the 
Spirit,  tells  us,  it  was  the  Fulfilment  of  that  Predidion  in 
'jod.  It  jhall  come  to  pafs  in  the  laftBays  (faith  God)  I 'will 
pour  out  of  my  Spirit  upon  all  Fie fh.  Ad.  2.  17.  "But 
''  (fays  ourAuthor)  it  is  not  on  thofe  allufiveExprelTions, 
"  that  we  lay  the  Strefs  of  theMode  of  Adminifiring  this 
"  Ordinance.".  And  there  is  very   good  Reafon  tor  ir, 
becaufe  they  cannot  do  it,  if  they  would  ;  there  being  no 
allufiveF-xprelfions  in  Scripture  taken  from  the  Mode  of 
Dipping,whertby  the  Application  of  the  Bio;  d  of  Chrill, 
and  the  Gift  of  the  Holy  Gholl  is  reprefented  :  though 
dipping  the  Body  under  Water  may  reprefent  the  Faft  of 
Chrift's  Buria'  and  Refurredion,  yet  no  fpccial  Applica- 
tion of  it  on  God's  Part,  but  only  on  ourPart,  a  fpirituaf 
Confoimiiy  totheDefign  of  both  :  which, 'tis  granted,  is 
one  Thing  fignilicd  in  Baptifm.    But  when  he  goes  on  to 

fay, 


Chap.  VI.  of  Infant-Baptifm.  451 

fay,  P-  115-  "  They  are  only  fuch"  [allufive  Expreffions) 
"  this  Author  attempts  to  mention  in  Favour  of  Sprink- 
"  hng" — This  is  certainly  anUntruth  inFad,  and  fuch 
as  mud  be  notorious  to  every  attentive  Reader,  that  'tis 
amazing  he  fliould  aflert  it.  Did  not  that  Author  argue 
from  the  Words  of  Inflitution,which  did  not  require  Dip- 
ping, but  left  theMode  tree,  and  required  only  baptizing 
withWater  ?  And  from  theScripture-lmport  of  theWord 
Baptize ^'s^\\\q\\  he  fhewedjin  the  facredPages  is  applied  to 
Sprinkling  ?  Did  he  not  argue  from  the  good  Appearance 
there  is  of  Evidence,that  in  theApoftles  Times  theMode 
of  Sprinkling  was  us'd  ?  What  has  Dr.  Gill  been  endea- 
vouring to  confute  in  this  whole  Chapter,  if  that  Author 
had  attempted  to  mention  nothing  in  Favour  of  Sprink- 
]ing,but  the  Significancy  of  that  Mode  ?  I  fhould  gladly 
admit  an  Apology  for  him,  rather  than  leave  him  under- 
^o  grofs  an  Imputation  :  But  I  am  at  a  lofs  for  anyThing 
that  can  be  faid  in  his  Defence  j  unlefs  it  be,  that  he  was 
confcious  to  himfelf,  that  this  Argument  from  the  ma- 
nifeft  Allufion  of  the  Thing  fignified  in  Baptifm  (as  ex- ' 
prefs'd  in  Scripture)  to  the  Mode  of  Baptizing,  carried  in 
it  Weight  and  Convidion,  above  all  his  other  Proofs. 
But  then,  it  is  one  Thing  to  fay,he  had  brought  no  other 
valid  Proofs  for  Sprinkling,  and  another  very  different, 
that  he  had  not  attempted  to  mention  any  other,which, could 
not  be  faid  with  Truth. 

And  now,  upon  the  whole,  I  may  venture  with  equal 
AfTurance  as  our  Author,  and  I  hope  with  more  fafety, 
to  leave  it  with  the  impartial  Reader  to  judge,  Which  is 
the  mofi  proper  andfignijicative  Rite  ufed  in  the  Adminifira- 
tion  cf  this  Ordinance  of  Baptifm^  Immerjion^  or  Sprirtkling 
and  Affiifion  ?  Or  rather.  Whether  they  be  not  each  an 
equally  proper,  and  lawful  Mode  of  Adminiflration,  and 
the  one,  to  all  Intents  and  Purpofes  as  valid  and  effedual 
as  the  other  ?  Or  whetherDr.  Gill  has  alledg'd  any  Thing 
o  prove  that  Dipping  is  of  the  EfTcnce  of  theOrdinance, 
Dr  the  only  Mode  of  Adminiflration, by  the  Iriftitution  of 
fefusChriil?  Or  whether  there  be  any  anfwerableStrength 
G  g  2  in 


rjp  ff'J^  rS»  wi>  rj^  «2f^  «4»  <^  W  ^  ^  fi*  ^^  w*  W  rl^  ejn  f$t ! 


Literal  Miftakcs,  'tis  hop'd,  the  Reader's  Candour  will  cxcufe  ;  the 
more  material  ones  that  difturbthe  Senfe,  he  is  defired  to  correal 
with  his  Pen  :  Siich  as  thefe  following. 

ERRATA 

pAGE  23  Line  6,after  Confequence^  add,/V,  that,  p  52  1  12,  fj'*?,  x yet> 
p  62  1  6,{ theriyX  theirX  zj,i  us,x  it.^  73  l2  7,after  £'a;/Vf«c^,add,o/'^ 
CommiJ/ton.  p  77  1  2 1,  f  w^,  r  they,  p  89  1  penult  r  all  the  Souls,  p  96 
1  22,  xPaJfage^  of  Infants,  p  1 03  18,  i not  Juit able ^  r  moji  fui table,  p  125 
1  7,  r  Stubner.  p  1 29 1  34,  for  5/^/^,  r  F.a/^.  p  1 34  1  2  f  //^^,  r  /^-^r^-.  p 
140I  'if^i e'ven^xever.  p  141  1  ijyrZimifces.  p  14.2  1  6,  r  ConfeJJions.  p 
1 46  1  1 4,  r in  Germany,  p 1 5 1 1  3,  iconfirm^  r affirm,  p  1 6 1 1  1 1 ,  r  Sake, 
or  Plaijler.  p  167  1  2,  i thefe,  r  there,  p  205  1  23,  r  in  their,  p  21 2  1  32, 
r  Infiitution  of  Sacrifice  :  And  after  FirJilingSySidd  of  his  Flock. p  217  1  5, 
r  implicitly ;  &  1  33,  r  drink  ihtfame.  p  223  1  i  5,  r  ^  Covenant,  p  226  1 
-Zyfhim,  r  Heirs y  1  16,  v  made  evident,  p  258  1  34,  f  Reafon,  r  Anfnxer. 
p  278  1  10,  dele  that  before  they,  p  287 1  'i,2,fCo'venant  r  Account,  p  289 
J  I,  xha've.  p  319  1  's^i.zfiQX  t\i&m,2iddyha<ving  fo  little  to  fay  in  their  ctvn 
Defence.  1  36,  r  /^a^.  p  3  55  1  2,de]e  By.\  3,  after  meant y  put  a  Comma, 
p  360  1  8,  r  which  is.  p  362  1  23,r  thattfr(?.p  370  1  8,f  L^w<r,  r  jejune. 
p  372  1  7,  r  mofi  frequently,  &  1  9,  f  large  r  Z/^^.  p  380  1  10,  for  their 
r  /^^.  p  382  1  2.  dele  to  before  /^«>.  p  390  1  33,  r  that  //is.  p  398 
1  8,  xfealed.  p  400  I  7,  i lattery  r  Zf//^r.  p  415  1  35,  r  baptized _>'^«. 
p  421  1  23  f  ^o/y,  r  %vholly.'p  429  1  21  i  onCyXour.  p  432  1  25  xfa<vour. 
p  436  1  7  r  Streams,  p  439  1  14  r  tanti  cKq  nobis,  p  440  1  15  f  --whin, 
I  '^jcbere.  441  1  30  r  ftiould  Z'^r^c^  been. 


||,  ,|»  c|:,  ojt- «:|»  o|»  «|(|j  «$!  i|»  J{*  «$.«$.  .^  ^  if ^ 

The 


The   CONTENTS. 


CHAP.    I. 

Containing  Remarks  on  Br,  Gill's  Introdu5fion, 

//£Uncharitablenefs  of  the     His  Remarks  on  the  Title-Page  of 


TAntipzedobaptifts    briefy 
noted.  Page  2. 

Mijiakes  in  FaB,  in  Dr.  Gill's  Ac- 
count of  thcOzC2Slon  of  his  Wri- 
ting cor  reded,  3 


Mr.  Dickinfon's  Dialogucy  confi- 
dered.  6 

The  Method  and  Form  of  the  Dia- 
logue, vimlicated.  % 


CHAP.    11. 

The  Confequences  of  embracing AntipxdohziptKm  hy  ftich 
as  have  been  baptized  in  Infancy  examined,  P.  13. 

n' Hefe  Confequences  reduced  to  five     Dr.  Gill's  Conceit    of  Mens  being 
Headset    Two  of  ivhich  more  '    "'    ^  "  ^  ^  '" 

largely  conjidered.  14 

Firft,  The  ^/w^rac/wg-Antipsedobap- 
tifm,  a  'virtual  renouncing  of  a 
true  Baptifm  ofChriji.         ibid.. 

The  Age,  not  efjential  to  the  Vali- 
dity of  the  Ordinance.  14 

Infants  capable  of  Chrijiian  Bap- 
tifm. 16 

A  Miftake  (fuppofed  in  the  Cir- 
cumjiance  of  Age)  does  not  nullify 
the  Ordinance.  23 

The  fuppofed  Error  of  adminiflring 
Baptifm  in  an  Age  too  early, capa- 
ble of  being  redtified  afteravards 
at  adult  Aget  nxithout  the  Repe- 
tition of  it.  24 

Parentsi??]^^/,^  Obligation  /«  dedi- 
cate their  Children  to  God.        26 

A  Dedication,  in  FaSi^bcing  made  of 
Children  to  God  in  Baptifm^  the 
Renunciation  of  it  unlawful     3 1 

Secondly,  This,  in  Effeil,a  making 
void  the  Qo\e.ndiiitfealed ijiBap- 
tifm  to  Infants.  35 

All  nnh^pt\zedPerfons,as  to  their'vi- 
fbhSiate fOut  of  Covenant.     38 


in  the  Conjenant  of  Grace  from 
everl ailing  uvfriptural,  irra- 
tionaly  and  contrary  to  Scrip- 
ture. 3^ 

Anecejfary  DifinSlion  betiveen  being 
in  Covenant,/;/  RefpeSl  of  it's  fpi- 
ritual  Di/penfation,  or  EJicacy, 
and  in  RefpeSi  of  its  vifibie  Ad- 
miniftration.  46 

Entring  into  Covenant  by  Baptifm, 
to  be  underfood  in  the  latter  Re- 
fpeSl.  50 

In  nxjhat  Senfe,  the  Covenant  of 
Grace  may,  or  may  not,  be  vaca- 
ted. 55 

The  Principles  of  the  Author  of  the 
Dialogue,  not  fa<vourable  to 
Arminianifm.  ^7 

Some  general  Conf  derations  on  the 
other  threeConfequences(!3'r.   60 

Particular     Remarks     under    each 


Head, 
On  the  third  Confequence. 
On  the  fourth. 
On   the  fifth. 


63 

ibid. 

CHAP 


The    CONTENTS. 


Chap.     III. 
ne  Antiquity  of  the  Pra^ice  of  Baptizing  Infants^    even 
from]  the  Days  of  the  Jpojiles^   maintained  egainft  Br. 
Gill's  Excepioyis.  P.    76 

The  7?//^^Anabaptifm,  n.vith  the 


c-r'HE  Importance    of  an  hiqu'iry 

-^  into  the  PraStice  ofthep'i77iitinje 
Churchy  in  Relation  to  Infant- 
Eaptifm.  ibid. 

The  baptiz.ing  (?/'Infants,  a  Practice 
generally  ohtainivg  in  thcChriftian 
Churchy  from  the  Days  of  the 
Apoftles,  pro'ved  in  dijcujjingfe- 
<veral  Queftions.  Asy  I.  What 
Evidence  is  therefor  thiiPradice 
from  the  Writings  of  the  New- 
Teftament?  78 

The  Objedlion  of  there  being  no  ex- 
prefsMention  of  hf ants  bapti%dy 
in  the  Nttv-TeJIament,  confiderdy 
and  anf^verd  at  large.  79 

II.  I r he t her  there  be  not  undoubted 
E^jidence  from  the  Writings  of 
the  ancient  Fathers,  that  Infant- 
Bapiifm  confantly  obtain  d  in  the 
truly  primitive  Church  ?        92 

Tellimonies  produced  from  the  an- 
cient Fathers  of  ihe  iourfrf  Cen- 
turies,clearly  e'vincing  the  general 
Pradice  of  Infant- Baptifm.      94 

III.  Whether  there  <i<jas'  any  confi- 
derable  Debate  in  the  Church  a- 
b  out  Infant -B  apt  if myOrO'^'^o(\i\On 
to  ity  before  the  Rife  of  the  Ana- 
baptilh  [A}i7io  1522.)  in  Ger- 
n^any  ?  123 


tragical  Affair  o/'Munfler,  con- 
fdered-y  and Dr-GiLh^sMi/repre- 
fentations  thereof  correded.      i  2  3 

All  Dr. GWV 5 Allegations  in  Fa'vour 
of  Antipsedobaptifm,  before  the 
Times  of  theK  efo rm ^tion,jhe'wed 
to  be  either  Mifreprefentations  or 
Impertinences.  134 

IV.  Whether  the  <2«aV»/Waldenfes 
being  in  the  confant  Practice  of 
Adult-Baptifm  onlyy  he  a  meer 
Chima;ra,     or    groundlefs    Fig- 


ment F 


So?ne  general  Account  of  /^^Wal- 
denies.  157 

Jfs  being  agreahle  to  the  Principles 
£17:4  Pratiice  of  the  ancient  Wal- 
denfes,  to  baptizelnfmts,pro'ved 
by  unexceptionable  Enjidcrice  from 
their  o-wn  Books  {5"  ConfefionSy  and 
other  good  Authorities.  I  5  9 

The  f-ui tiffs  Attetnpt  of  Dr.  Gill 
to  pro've  the  contrary y  confdered 
in  all  his  hfances.  .  1 64 

The  Vanity  of  our  Ad'verfa7-ies  in 
their  Boafts  of  Authorities  on 
their  Side.  177 

A  confirming  Evidence  of  the  Right 
of  Chrifian  Infants  to  Baptifm 
from  the  Practice  ofthemiinjofnl 
Church:  178 


HAP. 


IV. 


The  Title  of  Chrifian  Infants  to  Baptifm.,  founded  on  their 
Covenanii-Interefl:,  proved  and  vindicated.  P.  i  8i 

ThcNecfj/ity  of  Explaining  ts'Clec  r- 
ing  theDodrine  of  theCo\zxi2CC\X., 
fo  far  as  it  relates  to  the  prefc72t 
Argume/it.  '  183 


^lle  Matter   of  Right  difcufs'd  ; 

•*■  andi  his  Jhenvn  to  hi:  founded  in 
//^Jniereil  o/""  Believers  Children 
in  the  Ccvcnantj  undLr  the  Gof- 


Fiift. 


The    CONTENTS. 


Flrft,  Of  God'' s  Covenant  luith  the 
Mediator.  185 

7 his  pro'ved  to  be  ejfentially  different 
from  theCo'vena7it  of  Grace,     186 

Secondly,  Of  God'' s  Covenant  nvith 
Man,  confderd  in  its  general 
Nature.  1 96 

The  Covenant  of  Grace  in  Chriji 
njcith  Believers^  explained  and 
difingiiijhedy  under  f even  Heads. 
l.Shenving  what  the  Covenant  of 
Grace  is  in  general.  200 

II.  T^hat  it  is  Conditional.        204 

III.  That  it  has  been  alnvays  one 
and  the  fame,  for  Subjiance,  un- 
der various  outward  Forms  of 
Adminifration.  1\Z 

IV.  That  the.  Covenant  made  nvith 
Abraham,  in  particular y  voas  the 
Covenant  of  Grace  ;  the  farne 
for  Suhfance,  vjith  that  nxhich  is 
made  ixsith  all  the  Faithful  under 
the  Ncvo-Tefiament.  2 1 8 

V.  That  the  Infant- Children  of 
confederate  Parents,  are  ad?nitted 
by  Gody  together  nvith  their  Pa- 
rents, into  his  Covenant  under 
the  Nenv-Tejiament-Adminijlra' 
tion.  226 

VI.  That  the  Covenant  of  Grace  is 
to  he  confidtredin  tnvofeveral  Ref- 
peBsy  either  in  Refped  of  its  vi- 
iible  Adminijiration,  or  of  its  in- 
ternal {ipiv\iu?i\  Application.     2^^ 

VII.  That  the  Evidence  of  a  Cove- 
ran  t-Intereft  gives  a  proper  and 

full  Right  to  the  initiating  Token 
of  the  Nenv  Covenant.  251 

The  Argument,  for  the  Title  of 
Chriji i an  Infants  to  Baptifm, 
dra^>:n  ouffrom  thePrifnifcs.  255 


Dr.  Gill's  Exceptions  conftdered^ 
and refutedy  in  vindicating  the' 
Affirmative  of  the follonving  J^e- 
rieSyViz.Yir^y  Whether  the  Cove- 
nant made  w//>^Abraham,  nvas  a, 
pure  Covenant  of  Grace  ?       261 

Secondly,  Whether  this  Covenant 
nvas  made  nvith  all  the  Seed  of 
Abraham  according  to  the  Flejhy 
and  nvith  all  the  natural  Seed  of 
believing  Gentiles  ?  273 

The  cQ}nmonOh]tt\^\on  {fromFa.kWs 
being  pre-requifite  to  Baptifm) 
funded  on  Mar.  16.  16.  He  that 
believeth,  and  is  baptized,  &c. 
anfnvered.  289 

Thirdly,^^f//&^rCircumcifion  nvas 
isSeal  of  theCovenant  of  Grace  to 
A brah am 's  natural  Seed  ?    291 

Foanhly, Whether  Ba.^u{m  fucceed- 
ed  to  Circumcifon,and  became  the 
Seal  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace, 
to  Believers,  and  their  natural 
Seed?  301 

The  Affirmative  ofthefrjl  Branch 
of  the  ^ery,  viz.  That  Baptifm 
fuccecds  to  CircumcifoUy  pro-vd 
and  vindicated.  ibid. 

TheAffirmative  ofthefecondBrancb^ 
That  Baptifm  is  a  Seal  of  theCo- 
venant of  Grace  J  proved  and  vin- 
dicated. 309 

The  Antipaedobaptifts  Principles 
chargdvoith  diminilhing  thePri- 
vi leges  of  the  Gofpel-Churchy  and 
making  the  Evangelical  a  lefs 
glonon^Difpetfation  nvithRefpeci 
to  Infants,  than  the  legal.     319 

Dr.  Gill's  pretended  Vindication 
of  thim  Jhevjn  to  be  very  itfujfi- 
iient,  320 


Cha  p. 


The    CONTENTS. 


C    H    A    p.       V. 

^he  fever al  Texts  in  the  New-Teilament  alierJg'd  as  con- 
arming  Evidences  of  the  Divine  Right  of  Infant- Bap - 
i\{m^  Illuftr at ed  and  Vindicated^  viz,  P.  328. 

l.j^CTS  2.  38,  39.  Repent  and        teach  all  Nations,     baptizing 
be  baptized   every  one  of 

you  in  theName  of  jefus  Chrift, 

&c.For  the  Promife  is  unto  you, 

and  to  your  Children,  and  to  all 

that  are  a  far©if,even  as  many  as 

theLord  ourGodlhallcall.  329 
II.  Matth.  19.  14.  Suffer  little 

Children,  and  forbid  them  not 

to  come  unto  me,  forof  fuch  is 

the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.     337 
III.Matth.  1 8.6.  But  whofo  fhall 

offend  oneof  thefe  littleOnesthat 

believe  in  me,  &c.  352 

IV.  I  CoR.  7.  14.  For  the  un- 
believing Hufband  is  fandliiied 
by  theWife  &c.  Elfe  were  your 
Children  unclean,  but  now  are 
they  holy  357 

V.  Matth.  28.  19.  Go  ye  and 


teach  all  Nations, 

them  &c.  373 

VI.  Th  ivbole  Houfholds  recorded 
to  have  been  baptiz,ed^  Act.  i6. 
15,  33,  fiW  I  Cor.  1. 16.     385 

VII.  Rom.  11.17,-24.  Iffome 
of  the  Branches  be  broken  off, 
and  thou  being  a  wild  Olive- 
Tree,  wert  graffed  in  among 
them,  &c.  391 

Dr.  Gill's  'vatn  Attempt  to  clear 
the  Antip^dobaptifts  from  the 
Charge  of  Partiality,  in  admit- 
ti/tgW omen  to  />6fLord'sS  upper, 
luithout  exprefs  Neirj-Tejiame?!t 
Proof,  ivhich  yet  they  demand  in 
theCafe  of  Infants  Baptifm.     397 

I'he  Conclufion,as  to  the  Subjects  of 
Baptifm.  400 


Chap.     VI. 
Of  the  Mode  of  adminiftring  Baptifm,         P.  402 


Qpme  general  Ohfewations,  for 
*^  clearing  and  fettling  this  Part 
.  of  the  Control erfy.  I.  Tho  the 
wafhing  with  Water  he  of  the 
EJfence  of  Baptifm,  yet  the  Mode 
of  this  Wafhing  fivhet  her  by  pour- 
ing on,  or  dipping  into  the  Water 
is  not  effential,  nor  determined  in 
the  Ne<w-Tefiume7it.  403 

II.  The  Greek  WcrdUocTT^'ila)  is  ne- 
euer  ufed  in  fuch  a  Senfe  in  Scrip-, 
ture,  as  obliges  us  to  under fiand 
Dipping  to  be  meant,  hut  only  a 
Waftling  in  general.  404 

III.  Chriftian  Baptifm  is  ^very  fre- 
quently exprefs'd  iu  the  Neiv- 
"TefiamentWritings,  ly  the  general 
Term  o/'Waflnng,  tMch  may  he 
applied  to  either  hhde.  406 


IV.  The  Analogy  to  the  Thing  lig- 
nified  ispreft^'d  in  both  Modes 
of  baptifng.  407 

V.  There  is  no  Example,  extant  in 
the  ^bole  Is  en.'j-T eft  anient,  of  fo 
much  as  one  Perfon,  of  ivhom 
there  is  any  certainE'vidence  that 
he  'v:asbaptiz!dbyY\\iXi^\'i%.  408 

VI.  Were  it  certain  [as  it  is  not)  that 
Dipping  ^as.  the  moft  common 
Mode  of  baptizing  in  the  Apoftles 
Times,  yet  it  iviil  by  no  Means 
follo^,that  this  only  is  a  lawful 

and  valid  Mode  of  Adminift ra- 
tion. 409 
Dr.  Gill's  Arguments  l^OhjeHions 
examined  and  refuted.  Firll,Frc;« 
the  uf  of  the  Word  B«''T"i<a;  in 
Claffic  Authors,  "41^ 
Secondly, 


The    CONTENTS. 


Secondly,  The  Scripturc-Ufe  of 
the  Word  baptize  and  Baptifm, 
conjidered.  The  Texts,  n^jhere  it 
occurs ^  Jhenvn  to  make  rather  for 
the  Mode  c/'Affufion  or  Sprink- 
ling, aj^d  <^oindicated.  41  3 

Ziich  as  /peak,  1 11.  Of  being  bap- 
tized with  the  Holy  Ghofl,  as 
Act.  I.  5.  ibid. 

zdly.  0/Chrift'sSufFerings  calhda 
Baptifm,  Mar.  10.38.         416 

3dly.  Of  the  Cuftorn  of  the  Ji'ivs, 
when  they  come  from  the  Mar- 
ket, to  wafh,  or  be  baptized^  be- 
fore they  z2X,and  o/'/'-^^Baptifms 
of  Cups,cv'C.  Mar.  7.4.       ,\\j 

4thly.  Of  the  liraelites  being  bap- 
tized in  the  Cloud,  and  in  the 
Sea,   I  CoR.   10,  2.  421 

5  thly .  Of  the  legal  Purifications  by 
divers  VValliings,  or  Baptifms^ 
WEB,  9.  10.  423 

TMxxdAy, Dr. Qw.yI's  Arguments  from 
thofeTexts  thatfeem  to  favour  the 
Mode  o/"  Dipping  an/nveredy  and 
fheinjed  to  be  inconclufiue.        432 


(i)  Matth.  3,  6. 

433 

(2)    JOH.   3.    23. 

435 

(3)  Matth.   3.  16. 

437 

(4)  Act.  8.  38.39. 

ibid. 

(5)  Rom.  6.  4. 

439 

Fourthly.  The  Inflames  of  Baptifm 
in  the  Ne^iv-iejiamenty  <xvhich 
render  it  probable y  that  the  Made 
o/"  Affufion  or  Sprinkling  nx;as  in 
Vfe,  'vindicated.  443 

As,  the  Baptifm  of  the  threeThou- 
fand,  in  Act.   2.  41.  ibid, 

O/iaul,  Chap    9.  18.  446 

0/  Cornelius  and  his  Houfhold, 
Chap.    10.  47.  447 

Of  the  Jailor,  atid  his  Houlhold, 
Chap.    16.  33.  448 

Sprinkling/Z^w^  to  r-prefent  mofi 
aptly  and  properly  the  T\nng  fig- 
nified  in  Biptifm,  'vi'Z.Cleanfing 
by  the  Blood  of  Cbrijiy  and  the 
Influences  of  the  bleflei  Spirit, oft  en 
exprefs'dhy  Sprinkling.         449 

The  Conclufion.  451 


^iis^l8lifl§IS^I§l§?l 


Sold  oppoftte  the  Prifon  in  Qiieenftreet. 

A  Brief  Illuftration  and  Confirmation  of 
the  Diviiie  Right  oi  Infant-Baptijm ; 
In  a  plain  and  familiar  DIALOGUE,  be- 
tween 2iMintJler  ^indoncof  his PanJJjioners. 

By  the  late  Reverend  Mr.  Jonathan  Dickinson, 

Prefident  of  the  College  of  NenAj-Jerfy,  Sec, 


^" 


■•  i 


